This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:Death Editor 2 wants to add the Erwin Rommel page to Category:Nazis who committed suicide, and Category:Holocaust perpetrators. When I asked what is their ground or sources for these additions, they replied that they were "using basic reasoning" to determind such fact.
See the Talk page:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Erwin_Rommel#Categories_added_by_Death_Editor_2
They also rolled back one of my edits with the explanation "iirc":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Erwin_Rommel&action=history
I think both cases show the signs of "orginal research". Please look at this and provide comments. Deamonpen ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is Chateau de Meudon. It came to my attention in the rough translation queue ( WP:PNT); it was indeed a very bad machine translation.The topic is unquestionably notable, for its residents (kings of France, a king of Poland, a mistress of a king of France, etc), for the illustrious architects, landscape architects and painters who worked on it, and for the artwork that was housed there before it was moved to the Louvre and other museums. A recent talk page comment brought to my attention the involvement of a museum curator in the French Wikipedia page that our article was translated from.
I continue to work on the bad machine translation part of this, but what to do about the OR? I have previously encountered the like in other translations from French and taken the position that it is OK to mitigate this by verifying the content with independent sources, but in this case many of the diagrams and 3-D models are also the work of this editor and are too detailed to cite. And yet represent considerable work that is probably very valuable to a niche audience.
Eyes welcome. I could use some guidance here, and would like to end this by saying that I do realize that this article is not yet a polished, finished product. Elinruby ( talk) 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Further clicking at French Wikipedia turned up Manière de montrer Meudon so I am going to say that it is not the case that nobody has described this property per Blueboar above. Despite the fact that it is referenced by a museum accession number here, it is nonetheless a single document with an identified author which presumably has a name or title. There is also an contemporary inventory on the contents of the palace in the BNF holdings, which come to think of it presumably also has a title and knowing the French probably a url as well. Elinruby ( talk) 06:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it original research or "extrapolation" to calculate per capita crime rates based on total crime count and population? It simply means dividing one by the other. There's a bit of an edit war going on in Crime in San Francisco on this question. I don't believe it is, but one user thinks so. Related: if this is inappropriate original research, then is it appropriate to revert this data and replace it with another calculation of exactly the same kind but with a different source? Discussion on the talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Crime_in_San_Francisco#Per_capita_crime_rates Hi! ( talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Article/section: /info/en/?search=Fraction#Proper_and_improper_fractions
Context: Numbers of the form a/b, where a & b are both positive integers, are referred to as "proper fractions" if a < b (equivalently, a/b < 1) and "improper fractions" if a > b (equivalently, a/b > 1).
The point of contention here is the case where a = b, i.e. a/b = 1, fractions like "3/3". The Wikipedia article asserts that "improper fraction" includes such fractions:
"Common fractions can be classified as either proper or improper. When the numerator and the denominator are both positive, the fraction is called proper if the numerator is less than the denominator, and improper otherwise... In general, a common fraction is said to be a proper fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is strictly less than one—that is, if the fraction is greater than −1 and less than 1. It is said to be an improper fraction, or sometimes top-heavy fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is greater than or equal to 1. Examples of proper fractions are 2/3, −3/4, and 4/9, whereas examples of improper fractions are 9/4, −4/3, and 3/3."
The relevant cites given in those passages are to Perry and Perry's "Mathematics I", and to Greer's "New Comprehensive Mathematics For 'O' Level". The relevant passages from those sources can be seen here and here.
What Perry and Perry actually says is: "A proper fraction has the numerator less than the denominator and an improper fraction has the numerator **greater than** the denominator".
And what Greer actually says is: "If the top number of a fraction is greater than its bottom number then the fraction is called an improper fraction or a top heavy fraction. Thus, 5/4, 3/2 and 9/7 are all top heavy, or improper, fractions. Note that all top heavy fractions have a value which is greater than 1."
As I read those sources, both of them clearly imply that fractions equal to 1, where numerator (top) equals denominator (bottom), are not "improper fractions". It's not clear what they *are*; possibly the authors don't consider them to be fractions at all.
On the talk page of the article, I have noted some other sources which offer definitions similar to Greer's. I am not aware of any sources to support the "or equal to".
To my mind, these sources contradict the "or equal to" part of the definition offered in Wikipedia, and the presentation of 3/3 as an example of an improper fraction.
Since the article is protected, I requested an edit on the Talk page. Editors there have refused to do this, either claiming that these sources are consistent with the page content - I do not accept that they are - or by appeals to aesthetics (it would be "ridiculous" for other positive integers to be improper fractions, but not 1), or by stating the page "must not be changed" because surely there must be sources out there which support the definition given.
I don't see how these positions are consistent with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If there are sources which support the "greater than or equal to" version, then the article should include both and acknowledge that definitions are inconsistent on this point; if there aren't, then it should be changed to a "greater than" definition (including "improper otherwise" to "improper if the numerator is greater than the denominator") and the example of "3/3" should be removed. The current situation, where the article misrepresents the sources it cites by offering a definition not found in those sources, seems indefensible to me.
I'm therefore asking for uninvolved editors to take a look at this and see whether what I'm requesting seems reasonable, and if so to edit the article accordingly. 110.23.152.248 ( talk) 03:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
TennisFans ( talk · contribs) appears to be interested only in WP:REFSPAM of a recent Chinese preprint by someone named Conden Chao on multiple articles involving logical operations, including Exclusive or, Logical connective, Logical NOR, Sheffer stroke, and Logical biconditional (see recent history of those articles). I've warned them about original research, but more eyes on these topics and on this user's edits may be warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark#Synthesis in the lead section regarding the synthesis of critical reviews found in the lead section. The discussion hasn't seen any participation in two weeks, so it would be appreciated if anyone could chime in. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
After observing User:Nicolovaiana adding his own research to Hysteretic model, I removed it on the grounds of WP:OR. Then I noticed that virtually the entire article had been written by that user. The Matlab code included in the article has his byline on it. Four of the five sources supplied are by "Vaiana, Nicolò" and others. I don't know the extent, if any, to which material in the article, such as the mathematical formulas given, are published elsewhere in the field and the extent to which it's this user publishing his own research. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up: I'm looking again and seeing that even the formulas are preceded by the likes of "In the bilinear model formulated by Vaiana et al.". The entire article reads as a presentation by Vaiana of his own work. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
This article, while giving off the air of being general, only cites work by the editor himself, and in the process ignoring almost a century of work on hysteresis modeling. This gives a very biased view of the field, to put it mildly, and rather feels like self-promotion by the editor. This is not how a scientist should conduct himself.( Talk:Hysteretic_model#Very_one-sided_view.) Looks to me like the entire article should probably go. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe the article actuaria is going off the rails towards WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Before about a week ago, the article was full of misinformation. It had been caused by previous editors relying on recycling of other Wikipedia articles, a mislabeled museum photo and a failure to actually read cited sources. The topic had been approached strictly from a military history perspective and those involved failed to notice that the "actuaria" has primarily been a term for a type of trade vessel.
The article is currently well-cited with reliable sources, but my view is that Mathglot is ignoring this in favor of strictly personal interpretations, including attempts to deconstruct a Latin term that is already explained by cited secondary sources like Casson. I've voiced very strong disagreement with Mathglot regarding their approach to both the article and use of sources but I feel that I'm not being listened to. Peter Isotalo 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Are publicly viewable IRS forms, like form 990 filings by non-profits considered primary sources? Red Slapper ( talk) 01:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a dispute over how to describe the reception of The Angry Birds Movie at Talk:The Angry Birds Movie#Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed". Part of the dispute is over whether a "rotten" rating at Rotten Tomatoes can be called "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The list is largely uncited and has WP:V problems, but there has been some edit warring recently on including Russians on the list. The entire list probably needs to be double checked for WP:V, but another editor contested the listing of Russians on the list, it was removed and sourcing was requested before re-adding it. It's be re-added and the sourcing failed verification. I've looked and can't find a WP:RS that justifies inclusion (see the discussion on the UN Definition of "indigenous peoples" on the talk page if you're curious why there aren't sources), but editors have objected with dictionary definitions and pushed inclusion. This seems like an WP:OR issue to me, am I wrong? TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Would combining two casualty estimates with proper attribution to both sources be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Because one of the sources mention casualties from 1999-mid2002 and the other source mentions casualties from mid2002 to mid 2003. I'm basically writing a total from these two sources with attribution.
like this:
~13,700–15,700 killed
[a] (1999-2003;
Janes &
IISS)[ref1][ref2]
the note specifies the time periods more exactly
Ola Tønningsberg (
talk) 19:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
User:WalkingRadiance is adding badly-formatted original research to Partition (number theory) based only on a Stackexchange forum posting. Google Scholar finds only an arXiv preprint, arXiv:2303.03330, also not reliable. My revert was immediately undone by WalkingRadiance, so more eyes would be helpful here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?. The school is named after a road in Toronto, and the road is named after Queen Victoria. An editor asserts that a link should be added to Royal eponyms in Canada, but this appears to be a WP:SYNTH. The input of others would be appreciated. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is an AfD discussion currently occurring on the article. Discussion has been relisted twice now as this is quite a contentious topic so further input from others would be appreciated. TarnishedPath talk 11:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The article has seen edits adding the statement that Patreon banned the webcomic's creator for hate speech as a way for the article to address the webcomic's present form as hate speech, something that the article had not covered due to lack of reliable secondary sources for that. However, the edits all rely on primary sources. I've removed past edits which would only cite this tweet, on the basis that the tweet itself does not establish an unambiguous connection to the comic. A recent edit has provided additional information (such as about the creator being locked out from Twitter for hate speech also) and primary sources. The user who added the edit, User:BurningLibrary, has argued here that the edit only repeats what the primary sources say and such usage of primary sources is acceptable. As I don't think I'm well-equipped to handle this by myself anymore, I would like the issues of whether BurningLibrary's edit constitutes original research and whether any information about the comic or its creator being hateful can be added to the article without being the product of original research to be resolved here. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki ( talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third parties. So does it count as a claim about a third party for Ishida to say
Patreon removed my account,
Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic, etc.? I'd say these examples probably fall under that definition, but I could be wrong.I, too, would like to see more reliable, secondary coverage of the webcomic, and I'm mildly surprised that none seems to exist past ~2016. Shells-shells ( talk) 04:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute at centre-left politics about whether the cited sources support green politics as an example of centre-left politics. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
They are considered primary source. In
WP:FAMILYSEARCH, it says family search sometimes includes copies of such records which are sometimes usable. Any example of when birth/death records are acceptable when it is not specifically referenced to by a reliable source? My understanding is using such a source on your own is considered
WP:OR. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability.
. Some examples of said "limited situations" would be useful.
Graywalls (
talk) 16:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be forum shopping. Before I noticed the shopping, I responded. I am moving my response to what I consider to be the proper talk page,
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Primary source birth certificate, death records and such.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've done a lot of research trying to find citations to improve the focal seizure article, specifically the section on presentation of simple partial seizures while asleep. Almost the entirety of the section on simple partial seizures is unsourced, but specifically I have concerns about the section on while-asleep symptoms because I can't find anything to support any of it. That entire section was added back in 2007 in one edit with no source (see this diff - the article it belongs to was merged into the focal seizures article in 2013). This worries me because it's medical related, and a casual reader could easily take it at face value, which could cause problems if it's not actually true. It's completely possible I've missed an obvious source, but I'm out of ideas trying to find anything. Any advice? Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I need input at List of ethnic cleansing campaigns.
This list has massive problems with unsourced content and even worse, failed verification/OR issues. Many of the entries in the list are not supported by sources that support the claim that the incident in question was an ethnic cleansing campaign. Thus, they are based on individual editors' belief that they constitute ethnic cleansing.
I tried to fix it by removing WP:OR content, but have been reverted by editors who claim the changes are too sweeping, because of the magnitude of the errors found.
In my opinion, it is never appropriate to restore original research content when it was removed by another editor. There is no way we should be allowing poorly sourced content on such a sensitive topic to stand. ( t · c) buidhe 05:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion at the article Talk page about proposed content that includes discussion about original research/synthesis. Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Far-left politics that could use some more eyes. There is currently disagreement about how to approach sources covering the topic, and it's moving toward arguing about whether Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism should be considered significant far-left concepts. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This person made a giant mess. It is very likely that the articles they worked on were also edited by other accounts with an undisclosed COI.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Zenica87 Polygnotus ( talk) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Noonlight that has come to a bit of a standstill as others have stopped responding and would appreciate some more eyes on.
The question is whether or not the sourced material has evidence to substantiate the claim made on the company's page. Msmw4 ( talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
As I've laid out in the talk page of the relevant article, vast amounts of text have been added to Indeterminacy debate in legal theory over the last 2-3 weeks, by one user, with zero inline citations. That, combined with the user in question saying that his aim was to discuss the issue in a way markedly different to all existing sources on the topic, raised NOR flags for me.
In subsequent discussion on his talk page (or actually the talk page of one of the several IPs/accounts he's been editing under) he has also said that:
To me this seems basically to be an admission of large volumes of original research. The editor's response, during the same talk page discussion, has essentially been a strange kind of rules-lawyering, to reject the existence of the No Original Research policy and to accuse me of hypocrisy for engaging in interpretation of said policy's applicability to this situation.
In terms of the article itself, I think the best course of action would be to revert it to before this volume of text was added, given the user's own admission that it is original work. But if there are people knowledgeable on the topic who think it could/should be saved, that would be great too. In general though I'd appreciate some third-party input on how to resolve this dispute. Many thanks in advance. -- AntiDionysius ( talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah? Fascinating. How did you manage to overcome the indeterminism relative to the matter to ascertain the said policy as valid, thus signifying that it exists as a policy?and
You did resolve whether or not there was indeterminism as to the policy, right? I mean, there is also a contradiction called "ignore all rules." You've failed to prove-up that your so-called policy is entailed from the terms of service.Are there any editors/admins who are up for dealing with this sort of wikilawyer? Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
When I look through the article, I am seeing a lot of, sometimes entire paragraphs without citations and random bits added on the tail end of cited contents that appear to be possible WP:SYNTHESIS or interpretation and explanation by page editors rather than mechanical summarization of information supported by cited sources. Graywalls ( talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for a third opinion on what I believe is a violation of WP:SYNTH over at Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Unverifiable_information. Thanks! Cerebral726 ( talk) 19:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking for additional opinions on this page to understand if it can be considered an original research (or an original synthesis). As I wrote in the talk page, the page is based mainly on primary sources and I found different references that were not really supporting the sentences for which they were used. Thanks! LostMyAccount ( talk) 13:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, after what's happened in Israel recently there's been a wee bit of recently activity at List of Islamist terrorist attacks. The article has some heavy problems with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which me and another editor have been slowly working on for a little while after I failed to WP:TNT it. I'd appreciate if I could get the eyes of some experienced editors on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Re_add_"2001_Indian_parliament_attack" and Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#WP:SYNTH_editing threads. As there is an editor who's not getting it and the commentary from others might help. TarnishedPath talk 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. A review of sources they've proposed to support such edit reveals that none of them specifically name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
At the AfD in March 2023, there was consensus that entries of this list need to be cited to secondary sources rather than online satellite maps to avoid WP:OR, but people continue to ignore this rule, possibly because the in-page comment at the top of the list is not visible to those using the markup editor in a continent subsection. Should we create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which would be visible in all subsections and the only sourcing-related editnotice in mainspace? ({{ RS and OR editnotice}} is intended for use on talk pages of protected articles.) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Browsing around tonight, I arrived at this page from the Red River Valley page. Im not familiar enough with the topic to dive in too far with edits of my own, but section headings in the article of A legacy of fraud, A legacy of self-deception, A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest and a prominent Conclusions section, all without sources using those terms (and in some cases denigrating sources for NOT reaching those conclusions: [...]are largely understated in most of the literature that has developed around the treaty) makes it seem like someone's class essay being published as OR. Just hoping for some eyeballs. Like I said I don't know enough to be certain myself. - 50.234.188.27 ( talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a content dispute that I am referring from
the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please see
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft_versions_of_authorship_controversy_section. Does the following paragraph constitute
synthesis or other
original research?
A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds. [1]
The arguments for and against the inclusion of the paragraph are found in the discussion in DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm having a discussion with myself. Is this past the borderline of OR? I am about to review it and wish to get it right. Please ping me on your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Article Vlachs, entries 1 and 2, text: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia could not be verified in the source(s). On discussion page the editor failed to provide with clear quotes from the sources that sustain his synthesis of the material, including the naming of provinces added in his edit. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series regarding the cancelled television block known as Adventure into Fear. This conversation is long-lasting and has been at a perpetual standstill, as the page and several other pages designate Adventure into Fear as having been developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some eyes examining the conversations and the sources would be very much appreciated. ChimaFan12 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I was here accused of "original research" in the new article British possession which I have been writing. Please help me understand if this is so, because I don't think it is. I think I have used only secondary and tertiary sources for the article, and only cited primary sources 1.) to help the reader, and 2.) to provide direct quotations from the sections of legislation expressly cited by the secondary and tertiary sources. Nevertheless, the article was nominated for deletion almost as soon as I had started writing it. The wisest fool in Christendom ( talk) 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be grateful if experienced editors could look at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom as it cites pretty much no secondary reliable sources.
I've opened a new talk section there on this, but the pool of editors on the page is small so it would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I am seeking input into whether the Strictly Come Dancing (series_21)#Average chart qualifies as original research. These are not data generated by the show; these averages are calculated manually by editors. The "average score" plays no role in the competition and is not something that is announced or published by Strictly Come Dancing. When a weekly score is not out of a possible total of 40 owing to the absence of a judge or the presence of a 5th guest judge, the score is "adjusted" and then averaged in. Supporters of this chart state that this meets the criteria of WP:CALC. I would appreciate any feedback on this matter. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Page:
Involved users:
Hi. So there's a long, unresolved dispute over at the 7 nm process article, about whether Intel 7 should be in the 7 nm process, or in the 10 nm process article (and wikilinked in pages as such). The three editors named above are the participants of the most recent discussion on that article's talk page.
So, we've gone back and forth, and discussed a number of opposing points thoroughly. One point I'm not sure about, which I am requesting some assistance on, is the no original research point.
So, to put it simply, the Intel 7 process has a density of 100-106. Of the "7nm" branded nodes from the competing companies, TSMC's N7 is 91-96, and Samsung's 7LPP is 95-100. Moving on to 10nm processes, TSMC N10 has a density of 52, and Samsung 10LPP has a density of 51. The unit of all these numbers is MTr/mm2 (million transistors per square millimetre). Note, these numbers are directly from the 7nm and 10nm Wikipedia articles.
With that out of the way, the no original research point being raised by Newslinger is that out of the many reliable secondary sources talking about the Intel 7 process node that Newslinger has looked at and reviewed, most of them call Intel 7 a 10nm process node ( example), while a very few call it 7nm ( example). Newslinger claims that it is original research to categorise Intel 7 as 7nm in Wikipedia articles because the density (which is one of the core measurements of how advanced a process node is [1]) is almost as good as, if not better than 7nm processes from other companies.
I believe that this, in itself, is not original research, because it is a purely simple, factual number. It is a measurement, Intel 7 has that measurement comparing much closer to competing 7nm processes than 10nm ones, as stated in the third paragraph above. I think, claiming Intel 7 has to be 10nm because sources said so, despite that favourable measurement, is a bit like saying a 300 horsepower car's engine is less powerful than a 250 horsepower car's engine, because sources somehow claimed that, even though the 300hp engine is factually more powerful, going by that power measurement. In my opinion, these "which number is higher" calculations fall into the "Routine calculations" ( WP:CALC) section of the listed exemptions in the no original research policy.
I would like more opinions on whether this really is original research or not, as well as how much we should prioritise sources' claims over these factual number measurement comparisons. If this really is original research, then I will disregard my point of "Intel 7 is 7nm because it measures closer to other 7nm processes than 10nm ones" in the 7nm process talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Can one show that there was a major process change within Intel from its 10nm process to produce the Intel 7?That's a good question. Overall, there isn't really a density difference between 10nm SuperFin (the preceding node to 10nm ESF / Intel 7) and Intel 7, at 100.76 and 100.76–106.1 MTr/mm2 respectively. Intel 7 used to be called 10nm Enhanced SuperFin. [2] According to that reference, it basically seems to be a refresh of the 10nm process, stating 10–15% performance per watt improvements. On TSMC's side there is N7P, which brings 7% more clock speed or 10% more perf/W at same clock speed compared to N7, [3] so a similar increase in perf/watt, but still branded as a 7nm class node. And then there is TSMC N6, which TSMC doesn't seem to say anything about whether it's different or how different it is from the preceding N7+ process (with N7+ bringing modest density increase over N7), but is branded as 6nm class. [4] TSMC N6 is listed in the 7 nm process Wikipedia article (and in fact, there isn't a Wikipedia article for 6 nm process).
Its competitiveness can be mentioned in the 7nm article text, rather than listing it in a table.I think that would work as well.
References
If you search the string "The international community considers Israeli settlements", you will see that some editor or group of editors has taken the time to insert an overarching note in every settlement, not specific to the subject of the article, that settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights are considered illegal under international law, but Israel (and sometimes, it is added, the US) disagrees with this. Without commenting on the neutrality or veracity of this statement, it seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Is it not? -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Additional input welcome at the article or the talk page discussion ( Talk:Anti-cosmopolitan_campaign#Failed verification and WP:RS issues) ( t · c) buidhe 23:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this section count as original research/synthesis?
While the second stage engines were planned to shut down at T+8:33, a frame-by-frame analysis of the SpaceX broadcast [1] shows the following sequence: at T+8:03 telemetry indicated all engines had turned off, at T+8:04 a series of faint irregular flashes of light and an expanding gas cloud first become visible, at T+8:06 the final altitude velocity update is shown, and at T+8:12 the gas cloud reaches its largest apparent diameter. After some dead air, the commentators asserted Starship was entering the coast phase at T+9:50 before finally announcing "we may have lost the second stage" at T+11:40. At T+12:20 the commentators speculated the Autonomous Flight Termination System triggered. An official analysis of the exact sequence of events is still pending.
The citation only links to the official stream, which does not contain any "frame-by-frame analysis". 91.129.104.148 ( talk) 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I recently noticed
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, and looks for similar precedents and found exactly two:
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to me, all three seem like bizarre creations. I have to question whether these lists fall short of the notability bar for standalone lists, per
WP:NLIST, in a way that, pertinent to this noticeboard, strays too far into the realm of
WP:OR to be tenable - because ... absolutely no independent sources appear to be producing lists like this, but, rather, they all seem just cobbled together out of different news sources, most of them probably in turn based on government press releases. Most of these visits, individually, have no notability (no one would dream of creating standalone articles on them), and, in all likelihood, most had very little to no impact or relevance. So really, what's the point of gathering up this historical detritus of mundane, trivial visits that no one would otherwise remember? In the first list, there isn't even a single overlapping source between entries, so what is the thread of meaning holding this list together (aside from the incredibly lengthy and niche title specifically created to hold the information together)? On the Russian invasion lists, there are a few news stories might say 'so and so' and 'so and so' visited X, but I still don't believe this qualifies as a list topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"
, per
WP:NLIST, but rather more of a grand synthesis made up of otherwise extremely narrow and patchy pieces of news coverage.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Features many inappropriate citations to the Gospels for non-routine analysis. Not a great article in general Mach61 ( talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:LuchoCR
Is blocking edits without any base according to https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_de_Vanguardia_de_Nicaragua#Generaci%C3%B3n_del_2000 the Wikipedia article says that Francisco Ruiz founded la generación del 2000 here's what he says about that https://web.archive.org/web/20110928102314/http://www.leteoediciones.com/libros-poetas.php
LuchoCR isn't letting me add an author for which there is proof of involvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergara Acosta ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute with an editor who has been attempting to add original research to the Black rat article. This is not an area which I am qualified in, and to avoid misleading the editor or continuing discussion in an area I am not particularly knowledgeable in, I'm here to seek the help of editors who are either more qualified in this type of article, or can make a ruling on whether or not the information they are adding counts as original research.
I would appreciate any and all help to clear up this issue. -- GSK ( talk • edits) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Is "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." SYNTH given that the words "but" and "only" from the given examples have been removed? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
User deletion of chart below on the page Cardano (blockchain platform) in the revision history. Further debate can be seen on the talk page for resolution/ consensus.
Having read the standards for NOR it appears to me that this is not a fact, allegation, idea where for which no sources exist. The chart is neither analysis or synthesis and is purely statement of fact/price data. Nasdaq data source is a highly trusted stock exchange for more than 50+ years and one of the largest on the planet. No conclusion / additional bias is added.
(For clarity, Cardano and the token ADA has a value. This value has fluctuated since its launch over many years. The price data is freely available for anyone to evaluate from many differing sources online.)
I would greatly appreciate any assistance by third party to provide an objective perspective. I do not want to instigate an edit war and would prefer a third party to make revisions with commentary if deemed appropriate. If deemed fair, I would like to request the figure be reinstated. Thank you in advance. Bob ( talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Information from the article Name_of_Italy#Evolution_of_the_territory_called_"Italy": "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman".
The source for this information is a WP:PRIMARY (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1). This is how the secondary source(T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited) interprets the given information: [2]
And this is the primary (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) information itself(google translation): Ποσειδωνιάτου διήκουσαν, ἐπικρατῆσαν δὲ τοὔνομα καὶ μέχρι τῆς ὑπωρείας τῶν Ἄλπεων προὔβη. προσέλαβε δὲ καὶ τῆς Λιγυστικῆς τὰ μέχρι Ὀυάρου ποταμοῦ καὶ τῆς ταύτῃ θαλάττης ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων τῶν Τυρρηνικῶν καὶ τῆς Ἰστρίας μέχρι Πόλας. εἰκάσαι δ᾽ ἄν τις εὐτυχήσαντας τοὺς πρώτους ὀνομασθέντας Ἰταλοὺς μεταδοῦναι καὶ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἐπίδοσιν λαβεῖν μέχρι τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπικρατείας. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ μετέδοσαν Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς Ἰταλιώταις τὴν ἰσοπολιτείαν, ἔδοξε καὶ τοῖς ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλάταις καὶ Ἑνετοῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπονεῖμαι τιμήν, προσαγορεῦσαι δὲ καὶ Ἰταλιώτας πάντας καὶ Ῥωμαίους, ἀποικίας τε πολλὰς στεῖλαι, τὰς μὲν πρότερον τὰς δ᾽ ὕστερον, ὧν οὐ ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν ἀμείνους ἑτέρας...Poseidoniatus lasted, but they prevailed until the subjugation of the Alps. and he also hired Ligistica as far as the Ovarus river and the same coast from the borders of the Tyrrhenian and Istrian regions as far as Pola. I wonder if, having made them successful, the first ones called Italians spread it to the neighboring countries, so that they would receive a reputation as far as the Roman Empire. Behold, once, since the Romans gave the Italians the equal state, glorify also the Galatians in the Alps and the Venetians, I grant the same honor, and you promise all Italians and Romans, you send many letters, the former and the latter being, where not ῥᾴδιον επεῖν amenus éteras. [3]
In relation to the secondary source but also a primary source, is this information from the article OR? Mikola22 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Information in the article which exists in the note after Italian in context of Christopher Columbus and his Italianness. "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;"
This is information for which no reliable, published source exists in the context of the sources which talk about Christopher Columbus but also regarding the term Italian or Italians. This is what I know based on searching English sources. The only thing I know and what one editor said is that this information is based on some information of Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24 – AD 79), called Pliny the Elder.
I also researched Italian sources and found this, google translate: "La parola italiano non è sempre esistita (il che è ovvio), né (il che è meno ovvio) è nata a poca distanza di tempo da quella su cui è foggiata, cioè l’antico nome Italia. La terra che Greci e Romani chiamavano così – riferendo il toponimo a un’entità geografica dai confini variabili – non era, in effetti, popolata da italiani (itali antichissimi e popoli italici non avrebbero potuto usurpare quel termine) come non lo era l’Italia alto-medievale in cui si ponevano le basi di quella moderna. Il termine che oggi usiamo per indicare i suoi abitanti sembra dunque sorgere assieme al patrimonio linguistico che, prima di qualsiasi altro, contribuì a delinearne l’identità culturale. Cioè il volgare, alla cui sintesi moderna si darà più tardi, e si dà tuttora, quello stesso nome: italiano Questo termine è alieno – per ragioni che difficilmente possono considerarsi casuali – dall’uso dei fondatori letterari: Dante e Petrarca non lo impiegano mai, e come vedremo quella che individua nel primo il padre della lingua italiana è una formula tanto consueta quanto paradossale....The word Italian has not always existed (which is obvious), nor (which is less obvious) was born a short time away from the one on which it is modeled, i.e. the ancient name Italy. The land that the Greeks and Romans called this way - referring the toponym to a geographical entity with variable borders - was not, in fact, populated by Italians (very ancient Italians and Italic peoples would not have been able to usurp that term) nor it was high-medieval Italy in which the foundations of the modern one were laid. The term we use today to indicate its inhabitants therefore seems to arise together with the linguistic heritage which, before any other, contributed to delineating its cultural identity. That is, the vulgar, to the whose modern synthesis will be given later, and still is, that same name: Italian. This term is alien - for reasons that can hardly be be considered casual – from the use of the literary founders: Dante and Petrarca they never employ it, and as we will see the one that identifies in the first the father of the Italian language is a formula as usual as it is paradoxical. (Lorenzo Tomasin Italiano Storia di una parola) [4]
I found the same information in the note behind Italian in the article
Dante Alighieri. The information is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder, Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [
[5]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."
Otherwise, I've been looking for confirmation of this information and fact for almost two days(in English or Italian) and I can't find anything specific or in a secondary source as confirmation. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Datu likha has insisted on using their preferred version with original research/primary sources from the group Maharlika Nation, specifically about their practice and beliefs that were not reported by third party reliable sources.
Through their own words they are motivated to rectify any misconceptions about the group by including a court case ruling through a poor scan hosted in Facebook, which I think is a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
I have made the my best efforts to frame allegations about the group as allegations. Assuming the case dismissal is true, I imagine it is frustrating that no reliable media outlets have reported on it, or a clearer copy of the case is available through the National Prosecution Service (NPS) of the Department of Justice.
On the less contentious inclusion. No reliable media outlets have noted the specific of the group's beliefs on tigmamanukan and bathalaism. There are no explicit sources given on these aspects. These maybe part of the core tentants of the Maharlika Nation's internal affairs but without a source, it fails WP:VERIFY.
I have tried reaching out with the concern user on the talk page and edit summary but to no avail. I have requested page protection and has been advised by closing user Johnuniq to ask noticeboard for opinion on how to proceed on this matter. Thanks Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 08:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what noticeboard to go to but I thought this one would work. User:MonsenorNouel has been removing individuals from a list of notable Afro–Latin Americans on the basis that they don't "look" African enough. This dispute is taking place mainly on the user's talk page. When I provided reliable sources for a sample of these names which call them Afro-Latin* or in which they self-identify as Afro-Latin*, MonsenorNouel claims either that the sources are invalid, or that they do not make any claims about Afro-Latin heritage (or both). Instead, MonsenorNouel adds commentary to the article which is sourced to Ethnicelebs.com (a blog where [amateur] users research the ethnicity and genealogy of famous people).
The Ethnicelebs posts also appear to confirm that these individuals are Afro-Latin*, so I'm at a loss how to proceed here. ... discospinster talk 21:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The main subject of this article, indicated by the title, is/should be the impact of colonialism on conceptions of gender in Indigenous Nigerian cultures. The lead section indicates some ways in which this may be the case, though it's uncited. Importantly, none of the cited sections in the article discuss the impact of colonialism on Indigenous Nigerian cultures at all. Each of the sections is labelled as "pre-colonization". An earlier draft of the article also included the following sentence in the lead: "In navigating this complex terrain of colonial influence on gender roles and fluidity in Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge and respect the rich diversity of cultural expressions characterizing the nation's indigenous communities, each contributing to the ongoing narrative of gender dynamics in its own distinct manner." Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Palestinian genocide accusation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The victims section makes no mention of genocide, but other editors insist that it remains
WP:SYNTH despite the violation because good information is lost. In
Wikipedia:Edit warning it is written: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warning.
I don't know if it applies here. Apart from that, this content that violates
WP:SYNTH should stay?
Parham wiki (
talk) 17:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This issue is previously opened in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable reference in Johor Bahru, but there seemed to be minimal participation. More review sought on this.
The sentence Johor Bahru was also the second largest GDP contributor among the first tier cities in Malaysia in 2010 uses this reference ( "Urban Regeneration :The Case of Penang, Malaysia. Putting Policy into Practice" (PDF). Khazanah Nasional: 10. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2016 – via The chart of the GDP contributor is in Page 10.). Diff for the addition is [7].
It seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable accuracy and/or reliability. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities ( https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Could this count as original research, since the purported sentence and data are not verifiable in the cited slide? Slothades ( talk) 01:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced claims regarding the actress's sexual orientation removed as unreferenced OR. 96.246.238.31 ( talk) 22:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
RusHistorian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced texts User talk:RusHistorian#Unsourced statement, [9], [10], texts supplied with some sources which do not support the text Talk:Belarusian Americans#Belarusians identified as Russian , Talk:Belarusian nationalism#Nationalists were also opposed by the local intellectuals , Talk:Joseph Semashko#Latinization . Please check their latest contribution [11] if it's sourced properly, thanks! Manyareasexpert ( talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I am having a WP:OR dispute with @ NadVolum:. They believe that the two separate estimates of Palestinian children casualties have different classifications as to whether children are defined as a person below 18 or 14 years old. They claim that this is acceptable to add because it is WP:CALC. However, there is no reference for this claim at all. Related discussion: Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox#Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox
Ecrusized ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Some more input at Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal#'Individual_cases'? would be helpful. We are currently split 3 versus 3. The article, for a long time, had a section about individual cases affected by the scandal. This was removed based on an argument that talking about individual cases when over 700 individuals were affected constitutes WP:SYNTH. That seems to me to be a misapplication of the policy, but I thought I would seek the views of people here with more expertise! Bondegezou ( talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
User:MyrhaanWarrior, has been adding original research content in multiple articles [12] [13] [14] [15] has decided to ignore the concerns and warnings i've placed on their talk page. Can other users explain this to them. Magherbin ( talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Maghrebin Has been deleting my wiki edits which have been verified by multiple books and first hand authors and has been pushng false information on wiki pages backed by no details which are blatant lies anyone with an ounce knowledge of East African history would know, one example is his ethno nationalist tendencies, claiming his recently created ethnic group in the early 1800's had taken part in the wars of another ethnic group they are confused for which is over 5,000 years old. I have taken the time to explain on his talk page writing paragraphs with evidences and he has refused to engage or even bother refuting me, responding by giving me false warnings And even while I did verify my information he had deleted everything repeatedly making multiple edits MyrhaanWarrior ( talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors are disrupting the progression of the article with the pretence of some idea of policy without following the necessary policy which they are using to stop the changes that I recently made, by enforcing the notion that consesus is necessary if the sources don't have the information in for the false information or non present in the sources information to have been added to the article in the first place.
I expected the editors involved would like to and think it necessary to review my changed to confirm or find error in my changes (@ 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024) but all the editor did was revert the entire changes which has resulted in all the errors that I corrected being returned to the article. Now additionally another editor has posted a message on the Talk page, still not reviewing my changes to expect me to engage in a discussion on consensus of my "desired" changes, when the article simply now has errors in it.
Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 19:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Bon courage: we are probably moving forwards now so I retract the request Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think this is extrapolating and making inference rather than directly supported. I'd like to get additional perspectives. The prose in question is The Van Ryper ship models proved cost-effective for the government, as they helped in verfiying the accuracy of design, arrangements of naval deck fixtures, and alignment of various machinery components for larger ship constructions
, based on source text of It is impossible to estimate the money saved in the construction of large ships by use of these ship models to check accuracy of design, arrangements of deck furniture and the lead of various parts of machinery.
with regard to
this edit from the source
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ithaca-journal-van-ryper-ship-models/138720698/ The source discusses two model makers and I do not see it discussing effectiveness in a way that directly demonstrates the cost effectiveness of Van Riper models. 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Can someone check [21]? It seems rather odd. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Due to a content dispute on Eugene N. Borza, I need editors to confirm whether the following additions ( 1, 2, 3 and 4) constitute original research. Apart from these additions, it'd be great if editors could look at the whole Views section and determine whether it contains original research. Thank you. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This article makes extensive use of data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. Howecer, it appears this data is being misinterpreted by editors. Case in point the Armed conflict for control of the favelas in Greater Rio de Janeiro entry says there have been 14,383+ deaths, citing the project's Brazi page as a source. This was recently remarked on by an IP at Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Conflict for control of the favelas in greater rio. As a result of this various changes to the article have been attempted, such as this one changing the upper threshold of 2023 deaths from 6,976 to 336, then a similar change to the 2024 deaths, then a possibly ill-advised wholesale reversion of the article to a much earlier version.
However all these edits have the same problem, they involve interpretation of the data. While the Brazil page does give a total deaths for the country of 15,020 (14,625 in non-state violence), zooming in on the map shows that only 788 have occurred in Rio (plus a smattering of deaths in the vicinity of Rio). Therefore the 14,383+ figure is simply wrong. As well as this, the ACLED "dashboard" is cited consistently, for both the 336 deaths in 2023 and 10 deaths in 2024 (as well as many other entries on the list. I have absolutely no idea what options are being used to filter the data to arrive at those figures, I fear they are simply claiming all deaths in the Rio area are being lumped in as part of the favelas conflict, and the same applies for virtually every other entry on the list. Objections are met with claims such as "Those numbers are from ACLED, not mine", which ignores the entire basis of the objection. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 16:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some opinions on List of train songs. It appears to have become a dumping ground for any song that mentions trains in any way. The references are mostly to WP:ALLMUSIC or other sites that serve only to verify that the songs exist. I spot checked several and couldn't find anything in their references to suggest they had been classified as a "train song".
I think there might be a kernel of notability in the concept of the folk railroad song, but it's currently highly obscured. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Snarcky1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding criticism which is improperly synthesized from sources which do not direct mention either the theory being refuted or even the author of theory to Bicameral mentality and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Skyerise ( talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
As an argument against Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameral mentality to consciousness, some critics have referred to the Epic of Gilgamesh.No source cited. The rest of that para is about the dating of the epic, citing a source about the age of the epic and a source about the age of the old testament. What needs to be sourced is that some critics who? argued against Jayne's proposed date referring to the epic. The next section mentions what Jaynes wrote about the epic (as you quote above), but is followed by
His answer does not deal with the generally accepted datingwithout citing a reliable source that argues that Jaynes did not "deal with the generally accepted dating". Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A user at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)#Misleading content is insisting that content from reliable secondary sources should be deleted because it contradicts his own understanding after reading comic books featuring the character. I asked him to make a post here to settle the dispute, but he instead went to seek support at WP:WikiProject Comics. He seems to be making this argument because he believes I'm trying to emasculate the character by removing the laundry list of character feats cited to comic books (as he says here and here). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.Note that the direct and unequivocal contradiction between the two polices; obviously, as core policy, V cannot be overridden (certainly not by the mere manual of style) and always takes precedence, meaning PLOTCITE only applies as long as the summary isn't challenged (or likely to be challenged, in the case of summaries that make obviously controversial interpretations of the text.) At best, all PLOTCITE accomplishes is lightly discouraging editors from going around challenging every single plot summary for the sake of doing so, but it can't prevent anyone from challenging the text in any specific instance or remove the requirement for an in-line citation once that challenge occurs. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
What about changing it to "several tons", without a specific number? The references would still verify it, it would be consistent with the character's usual in-story characterization (that he's really strong, even by superhero standards), and I don't think it would contradict anything. Cambalachero ( talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretationand
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.If you're using the comic books themselves or your knowledge of them to write an article about a comic book character, then you're doing it wrong. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
per definition unreliable, not according to how we do things on this site. MrOllie ( talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength"? Rjjiii ( talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I still need responses that instruct me regarding if it is acceptable if I use the following two pages, and other similar sources, as references for Thor's powers and abilities section, so I know how to proceed here. [27] [28]
Thanks in advance for any help. David A ( talk) 08:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
At the Foot (unit) talk page in the thread "Plural : feet" there is disagreement, when describing the proper usage of the plural (fee), whether it is necessary to cite a reliable source that is specifically about word usage, such as a dictionary or style guide, or whether citing several reliable sources that just use the word "feet" in a certain context is good enough.
The suggestion from several IP addresses seems to be that a statement could be put in the article that an exchange such as
is common usage. Such a statement would only need examples from a few reliable sources that are merely using such language, without evaluating it the way a dictionary or style guide would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
{{convert|12|ft}}
→ 12 feet (3.7 m){{convert|12|foot}}
→ 12 foot (3.7 m)Seems like the consensus is that "foot" is indeed a commonly-used alternative plural - the fact that some editors consider it "colloquial" or "incorrect" isn't really relevant. Wikipedia should just describe things as they are, rather than as some editors would like them to be. All we're discussing is whether the article should list "foot" as an alternative plural to "feet" in common English usage, not that its the primary plural or anything. I see no valid reason to suppress this information. I would also note that its not common practice for demarcation of plurals to require citations at all. There's no citation in /info/en/?search=Sheep explaining that the plural of sheep is sheep for example, and that was just the first page I checked. 2.222.13.214 ( talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I take a different position on this. When someone says "six foot" they are not using "foot" as the plural of "foot". Rather, they are using the singular form in a common exception to the rules of grammar. Note how it is similar to "a six foot man"; one never hears of "a six feet man". We also hear of someone taking a "two mile run", which isn't a use of "mile" as a plural of "mile". In short, no evidence is provided here that "foot" is ever used as the plural of "foot". Zero talk 23:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@StarkReport wrote in History of Hinduism that:
In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature. ...
But after I checked one of the sources:
It seems that this is not entirely the case:
P. 183:
It is true that Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, rode to power on a wave of bloody zealotry. To defeat the great Hindu Rajput kings, whose troops outnumbered his by as many as ten to one, Babur inflamed the passions of his Muslim soldiers by calling his war against the Hindus a jihad, or holy war. To demonstrate his own commitment to Islam, Babur had his entire wine collection poured onto the ground and his wineglasses and flagons smashed before his men. This act of sacrifice is said to have infused his men with religious fervor and brought them victory at the decisive Battle of Khanua. To be sure, it probably helped that Babur's men had firearms while the Rajputs did not. In any event, after days of slaughter, the Rajputs fled the battlefield, leaving Babur triumphant over northern India.
.
P. 184
It was only under Humayun's son Akbar, and his next several successors, that the Mughal dynasty consolidated its power to become one of the greatest empires of the time. Not coincidentally, Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world. Indeed, without this turn to tolerance, it is highly unlikely that the Mughal Empire could have lasted as long as it did, or reached its dazzling heights of cultural grandeur. Conversely, the period of Mughal decline is associated with some of the most brutal episodes of ethnic and religious persecution in India's history.
.
P. 185
Akbar's patronage extended to men of all faiths. Though illiterate himself, he (like his distant relation Khubilai Khan) strove to fill his court with men of arts and learning. Among his courtiers the nine most illustrious were known as the navratna, or nine jewels of the Mughal crown. Four of these "nine jewels" were Hindu.
.
P. 186
To a surprising extent, Akbar did not favor Muslims. In war, he crushed resisting factions with the same brutality whether they subscribed to Hinduism or Islam. He attacked corruption among the Muslim clergy and initiated sweeping reforms equalizing land privileges for holy men of all persuasions. Along with Muslim festivals, he celebrated Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Defying orthodox Islamic law, he granted non-Muslims permission to repair their temples and to build new places of worship. He also decreed that Hindus who had been forced to convert to Islam could reconvert without being subject to the death penalty. Most dramat ically, in 1579 Akbar abolished the jiziya, a mandatory tax levied exclusively on non-Muslims.
.
P. 189
In 1658, the Mughal Empire came into the hands of Aurangzeb Alamgir, the third son of Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb became emperor after killing his eldest brother, Dara—whose head he sent on a platter to their dying father. Dara had been an intellectually curious, open-minded scholar with a strong interest in Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, and Christianity as well as Islam. As Aurangzeb explained, "The fear of seeing the Muhammadan religion oppressed in India if my brother Dara ascended the throne" was what compelled him to seize power.
.
P. 190
Aurangzeb's Muslim zealotry tore the fragile religious and political unity of the Mughal Empire to pieces. His vicious campaign to eradicate Sikhism—including the destruction of temples and the execution of a revered Sikh holy man (on charges of converting Muslims)—earned the Mughals the hatred of tens of thousands in northern India and paved the way for Sikh militarism.
TL;DR:
According to this source, the Mughals rose and fell with bloodshed caused by the "Muslim zealotry" of their rulers at those times. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc.
But @StarkReport only
wrote in the article that: "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
Isn't this gross source misrepresentation and cherrypicking? I haven't checked the rest of his addition, but much, if not all, of the section of the article was
replaced for this "neutral" version of his. And a lot of what he has removed seems to be critical of Islam. Isn't this also considered
WP:CENSORSHIP? —
Kaalakaa
(talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
I saw this map and was wondering if anything needs to be done. The immediate source website seems to have disappeared, the data is apparently from the US census. Without OR can one produce a map like this?
File:Absenceblacks.png JMWt ( talk) 11:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Not OR provided that the data (assuming it is reliable) can be transparently mapped to the er, map. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
After checking the two possible statistical tables that could have been used to create the map, the first thing I noticed is some counties that are highlighted in yellow are in fact missing from the tables. Examples include, but are not limited to Powder River County (30075), Terrell County (48443) and Kusilvak Census Area (02158). I also noticed the same thing regarding the other map (used in the African Americans article) which shows some 30 counties as having less than 2% when in fact they are not mentioned in the source. Is there something slightly wrong with these maps or am I missing something obvious? M.Bitton ( talk) 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Simply taking data from a reliable source and presenting it in graphical form is not OR. However, guessing extra data that is not in the source (as M.Bitton suggests) would definitely be OR. There are other arguments that might be brought against the map, for example whether the choice of 25 as a cutoff gives a fair impression, but that's an NPOV issue, not an OR issue. Zero talk 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious to hear opinions on this and similar pages. It seems to me that this is WP:SYNTH - in the sense that the page is pulling together results from competitions in an era when a "season" meant essentially nothing. Travel was obviously difficult at the time, so what actually happened was local/regional events which happened in the same year. There were champions of multiple championships, but that's still not a "season" as we might think of it today. They likely lived in countries where there were multiple events, elsewhere not so much.
Is there any value in pages which attempt to put modern language onto sporting events in the past? Is it WP:SYNTH to do this and WP:OR given the effort needed to collect the data and knit it into a coherent page? Thanks. JMWt ( talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion here where a user is arguing for the deletion for a sourced claim in the lead of the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that asserts the RSS drew inspiration from European Fascist movements. The claim is sourced, but the person making this argument has enumerated reasons they do not agree with the sources or various faults they find in them, which I believe is their own OR. They naturally disagree with my assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 17:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This is coming from
WP:ITNC but likely should be considered across the board. At articles like
77th British Academy Film Awards,
96th Academy Awards or
75th Primetime Emmy Awards (among many others), there is typically a section named Statistics or similar where the total number of nominations and wins by a work or other body (such as networks with the Emmys) are listed. Two possible SYNTH problems have been identified with these.
First, whether these lists being compiled by WP editors based on the nomination lists or winners lists is a violation of SYNTH, or whether that qualifies as a basic CALC. This also leads to the case when editors add in the footnotes as seen on the BAFTA film awards, which, when unsourced, feels like an attempt at SYNTH.
Second, whether these lists even belong in the articles. I can generally show that for these major awards that there is generally some reliable soruce that has shown interest to identify the most nominated or most winning work (eg for the Oscars,
this Variety articles) but these articles usually do not fill out the full list down to those that are nominated or won a minimum of 2 awards. So it still is a question of whether such a full list is appropriate given this lack of completeness in the sourcing.
It would be a good idea for community input on where the line between inappropriate SYNTH and allowed CALC would be drawn for these cases, since this is a practice reflected across nearly any major award ceremony for any media. —
Masem (
t) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:Death Editor 2 wants to add the Erwin Rommel page to Category:Nazis who committed suicide, and Category:Holocaust perpetrators. When I asked what is their ground or sources for these additions, they replied that they were "using basic reasoning" to determind such fact.
See the Talk page:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Erwin_Rommel#Categories_added_by_Death_Editor_2
They also rolled back one of my edits with the explanation "iirc":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Erwin_Rommel&action=history
I think both cases show the signs of "orginal research". Please look at this and provide comments. Deamonpen ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The article is Chateau de Meudon. It came to my attention in the rough translation queue ( WP:PNT); it was indeed a very bad machine translation.The topic is unquestionably notable, for its residents (kings of France, a king of Poland, a mistress of a king of France, etc), for the illustrious architects, landscape architects and painters who worked on it, and for the artwork that was housed there before it was moved to the Louvre and other museums. A recent talk page comment brought to my attention the involvement of a museum curator in the French Wikipedia page that our article was translated from.
I continue to work on the bad machine translation part of this, but what to do about the OR? I have previously encountered the like in other translations from French and taken the position that it is OK to mitigate this by verifying the content with independent sources, but in this case many of the diagrams and 3-D models are also the work of this editor and are too detailed to cite. And yet represent considerable work that is probably very valuable to a niche audience.
Eyes welcome. I could use some guidance here, and would like to end this by saying that I do realize that this article is not yet a polished, finished product. Elinruby ( talk) 23:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Further clicking at French Wikipedia turned up Manière de montrer Meudon so I am going to say that it is not the case that nobody has described this property per Blueboar above. Despite the fact that it is referenced by a museum accession number here, it is nonetheless a single document with an identified author which presumably has a name or title. There is also an contemporary inventory on the contents of the palace in the BNF holdings, which come to think of it presumably also has a title and knowing the French probably a url as well. Elinruby ( talk) 06:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Is it original research or "extrapolation" to calculate per capita crime rates based on total crime count and population? It simply means dividing one by the other. There's a bit of an edit war going on in Crime in San Francisco on this question. I don't believe it is, but one user thinks so. Related: if this is inappropriate original research, then is it appropriate to revert this data and replace it with another calculation of exactly the same kind but with a different source? Discussion on the talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Crime_in_San_Francisco#Per_capita_crime_rates Hi! ( talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Article/section: /info/en/?search=Fraction#Proper_and_improper_fractions
Context: Numbers of the form a/b, where a & b are both positive integers, are referred to as "proper fractions" if a < b (equivalently, a/b < 1) and "improper fractions" if a > b (equivalently, a/b > 1).
The point of contention here is the case where a = b, i.e. a/b = 1, fractions like "3/3". The Wikipedia article asserts that "improper fraction" includes such fractions:
"Common fractions can be classified as either proper or improper. When the numerator and the denominator are both positive, the fraction is called proper if the numerator is less than the denominator, and improper otherwise... In general, a common fraction is said to be a proper fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is strictly less than one—that is, if the fraction is greater than −1 and less than 1. It is said to be an improper fraction, or sometimes top-heavy fraction, if the absolute value of the fraction is greater than or equal to 1. Examples of proper fractions are 2/3, −3/4, and 4/9, whereas examples of improper fractions are 9/4, −4/3, and 3/3."
The relevant cites given in those passages are to Perry and Perry's "Mathematics I", and to Greer's "New Comprehensive Mathematics For 'O' Level". The relevant passages from those sources can be seen here and here.
What Perry and Perry actually says is: "A proper fraction has the numerator less than the denominator and an improper fraction has the numerator **greater than** the denominator".
And what Greer actually says is: "If the top number of a fraction is greater than its bottom number then the fraction is called an improper fraction or a top heavy fraction. Thus, 5/4, 3/2 and 9/7 are all top heavy, or improper, fractions. Note that all top heavy fractions have a value which is greater than 1."
As I read those sources, both of them clearly imply that fractions equal to 1, where numerator (top) equals denominator (bottom), are not "improper fractions". It's not clear what they *are*; possibly the authors don't consider them to be fractions at all.
On the talk page of the article, I have noted some other sources which offer definitions similar to Greer's. I am not aware of any sources to support the "or equal to".
To my mind, these sources contradict the "or equal to" part of the definition offered in Wikipedia, and the presentation of 3/3 as an example of an improper fraction.
Since the article is protected, I requested an edit on the Talk page. Editors there have refused to do this, either claiming that these sources are consistent with the page content - I do not accept that they are - or by appeals to aesthetics (it would be "ridiculous" for other positive integers to be improper fractions, but not 1), or by stating the page "must not be changed" because surely there must be sources out there which support the definition given.
I don't see how these positions are consistent with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If there are sources which support the "greater than or equal to" version, then the article should include both and acknowledge that definitions are inconsistent on this point; if there aren't, then it should be changed to a "greater than" definition (including "improper otherwise" to "improper if the numerator is greater than the denominator") and the example of "3/3" should be removed. The current situation, where the article misrepresents the sources it cites by offering a definition not found in those sources, seems indefensible to me.
I'm therefore asking for uninvolved editors to take a look at this and see whether what I'm requesting seems reasonable, and if so to edit the article accordingly. 110.23.152.248 ( talk) 03:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
TennisFans ( talk · contribs) appears to be interested only in WP:REFSPAM of a recent Chinese preprint by someone named Conden Chao on multiple articles involving logical operations, including Exclusive or, Logical connective, Logical NOR, Sheffer stroke, and Logical biconditional (see recent history of those articles). I've warned them about original research, but more eyes on these topics and on this user's edits may be warranted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Raiders of the Lost Ark#Synthesis in the lead section regarding the synthesis of critical reviews found in the lead section. The discussion hasn't seen any participation in two weeks, so it would be appreciated if anyone could chime in. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
After observing User:Nicolovaiana adding his own research to Hysteretic model, I removed it on the grounds of WP:OR. Then I noticed that virtually the entire article had been written by that user. The Matlab code included in the article has his byline on it. Four of the five sources supplied are by "Vaiana, Nicolò" and others. I don't know the extent, if any, to which material in the article, such as the mathematical formulas given, are published elsewhere in the field and the extent to which it's this user publishing his own research. Largoplazo ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up: I'm looking again and seeing that even the formulas are preceded by the likes of "In the bilinear model formulated by Vaiana et al.". The entire article reads as a presentation by Vaiana of his own work. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
This article, while giving off the air of being general, only cites work by the editor himself, and in the process ignoring almost a century of work on hysteresis modeling. This gives a very biased view of the field, to put it mildly, and rather feels like self-promotion by the editor. This is not how a scientist should conduct himself.( Talk:Hysteretic_model#Very_one-sided_view.) Looks to me like the entire article should probably go. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe the article actuaria is going off the rails towards WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Before about a week ago, the article was full of misinformation. It had been caused by previous editors relying on recycling of other Wikipedia articles, a mislabeled museum photo and a failure to actually read cited sources. The topic had been approached strictly from a military history perspective and those involved failed to notice that the "actuaria" has primarily been a term for a type of trade vessel.
The article is currently well-cited with reliable sources, but my view is that Mathglot is ignoring this in favor of strictly personal interpretations, including attempts to deconstruct a Latin term that is already explained by cited secondary sources like Casson. I've voiced very strong disagreement with Mathglot regarding their approach to both the article and use of sources but I feel that I'm not being listened to. Peter Isotalo 17:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Are publicly viewable IRS forms, like form 990 filings by non-profits considered primary sources? Red Slapper ( talk) 01:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a dispute over how to describe the reception of The Angry Birds Movie at Talk:The Angry Birds Movie#Rotten tomatoes "negative" or "mixed". Part of the dispute is over whether a "rotten" rating at Rotten Tomatoes can be called "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The list is largely uncited and has WP:V problems, but there has been some edit warring recently on including Russians on the list. The entire list probably needs to be double checked for WP:V, but another editor contested the listing of Russians on the list, it was removed and sourcing was requested before re-adding it. It's be re-added and the sourcing failed verification. I've looked and can't find a WP:RS that justifies inclusion (see the discussion on the UN Definition of "indigenous peoples" on the talk page if you're curious why there aren't sources), but editors have objected with dictionary definitions and pushed inclusion. This seems like an WP:OR issue to me, am I wrong? TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Would combining two casualty estimates with proper attribution to both sources be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Because one of the sources mention casualties from 1999-mid2002 and the other source mentions casualties from mid2002 to mid 2003. I'm basically writing a total from these two sources with attribution.
like this:
~13,700–15,700 killed
[a] (1999-2003;
Janes &
IISS)[ref1][ref2]
the note specifies the time periods more exactly
Ola Tønningsberg (
talk) 19:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
User:WalkingRadiance is adding badly-formatted original research to Partition (number theory) based only on a Stackexchange forum posting. Google Scholar finds only an arXiv preprint, arXiv:2303.03330, also not reliable. My revert was immediately undone by WalkingRadiance, so more eyes would be helpful here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?. The school is named after a road in Toronto, and the road is named after Queen Victoria. An editor asserts that a link should be added to Royal eponyms in Canada, but this appears to be a WP:SYNTH. The input of others would be appreciated. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 22:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is an AfD discussion currently occurring on the article. Discussion has been relisted twice now as this is quite a contentious topic so further input from others would be appreciated. TarnishedPath talk 11:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The article has seen edits adding the statement that Patreon banned the webcomic's creator for hate speech as a way for the article to address the webcomic's present form as hate speech, something that the article had not covered due to lack of reliable secondary sources for that. However, the edits all rely on primary sources. I've removed past edits which would only cite this tweet, on the basis that the tweet itself does not establish an unambiguous connection to the comic. A recent edit has provided additional information (such as about the creator being locked out from Twitter for hate speech also) and primary sources. The user who added the edit, User:BurningLibrary, has argued here that the edit only repeats what the primary sources say and such usage of primary sources is acceptable. As I don't think I'm well-equipped to handle this by myself anymore, I would like the issues of whether BurningLibrary's edit constitutes original research and whether any information about the comic or its creator being hateful can be added to the article without being the product of original research to be resolved here. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki ( talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third parties. So does it count as a claim about a third party for Ishida to say
Patreon removed my account,
Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic, etc.? I'd say these examples probably fall under that definition, but I could be wrong.I, too, would like to see more reliable, secondary coverage of the webcomic, and I'm mildly surprised that none seems to exist past ~2016. Shells-shells ( talk) 04:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute at centre-left politics about whether the cited sources support green politics as an example of centre-left politics. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
They are considered primary source. In
WP:FAMILYSEARCH, it says family search sometimes includes copies of such records which are sometimes usable. Any example of when birth/death records are acceptable when it is not specifically referenced to by a reliable source? My understanding is using such a source on your own is considered
WP:OR. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability.
. Some examples of said "limited situations" would be useful.
Graywalls (
talk) 16:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be forum shopping. Before I noticed the shopping, I responded. I am moving my response to what I consider to be the proper talk page,
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Primary source birth certificate, death records and such.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've done a lot of research trying to find citations to improve the focal seizure article, specifically the section on presentation of simple partial seizures while asleep. Almost the entirety of the section on simple partial seizures is unsourced, but specifically I have concerns about the section on while-asleep symptoms because I can't find anything to support any of it. That entire section was added back in 2007 in one edit with no source (see this diff - the article it belongs to was merged into the focal seizures article in 2013). This worries me because it's medical related, and a casual reader could easily take it at face value, which could cause problems if it's not actually true. It's completely possible I've missed an obvious source, but I'm out of ideas trying to find anything. Any advice? Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I need input at List of ethnic cleansing campaigns.
This list has massive problems with unsourced content and even worse, failed verification/OR issues. Many of the entries in the list are not supported by sources that support the claim that the incident in question was an ethnic cleansing campaign. Thus, they are based on individual editors' belief that they constitute ethnic cleansing.
I tried to fix it by removing WP:OR content, but have been reverted by editors who claim the changes are too sweeping, because of the magnitude of the errors found.
In my opinion, it is never appropriate to restore original research content when it was removed by another editor. There is no way we should be allowing poorly sourced content on such a sensitive topic to stand. ( t · c) buidhe 05:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion at the article Talk page about proposed content that includes discussion about original research/synthesis. Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Far-left politics that could use some more eyes. There is currently disagreement about how to approach sources covering the topic, and it's moving toward arguing about whether Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism should be considered significant far-left concepts. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This person made a giant mess. It is very likely that the articles they worked on were also edited by other accounts with an undisclosed COI.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Zenica87 Polygnotus ( talk) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Noonlight that has come to a bit of a standstill as others have stopped responding and would appreciate some more eyes on.
The question is whether or not the sourced material has evidence to substantiate the claim made on the company's page. Msmw4 ( talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
As I've laid out in the talk page of the relevant article, vast amounts of text have been added to Indeterminacy debate in legal theory over the last 2-3 weeks, by one user, with zero inline citations. That, combined with the user in question saying that his aim was to discuss the issue in a way markedly different to all existing sources on the topic, raised NOR flags for me.
In subsequent discussion on his talk page (or actually the talk page of one of the several IPs/accounts he's been editing under) he has also said that:
To me this seems basically to be an admission of large volumes of original research. The editor's response, during the same talk page discussion, has essentially been a strange kind of rules-lawyering, to reject the existence of the No Original Research policy and to accuse me of hypocrisy for engaging in interpretation of said policy's applicability to this situation.
In terms of the article itself, I think the best course of action would be to revert it to before this volume of text was added, given the user's own admission that it is original work. But if there are people knowledgeable on the topic who think it could/should be saved, that would be great too. In general though I'd appreciate some third-party input on how to resolve this dispute. Many thanks in advance. -- AntiDionysius ( talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah? Fascinating. How did you manage to overcome the indeterminism relative to the matter to ascertain the said policy as valid, thus signifying that it exists as a policy?and
You did resolve whether or not there was indeterminism as to the policy, right? I mean, there is also a contradiction called "ignore all rules." You've failed to prove-up that your so-called policy is entailed from the terms of service.Are there any editors/admins who are up for dealing with this sort of wikilawyer? Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
When I look through the article, I am seeing a lot of, sometimes entire paragraphs without citations and random bits added on the tail end of cited contents that appear to be possible WP:SYNTHESIS or interpretation and explanation by page editors rather than mechanical summarization of information supported by cited sources. Graywalls ( talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for a third opinion on what I believe is a violation of WP:SYNTH over at Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Unverifiable_information. Thanks! Cerebral726 ( talk) 19:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking for additional opinions on this page to understand if it can be considered an original research (or an original synthesis). As I wrote in the talk page, the page is based mainly on primary sources and I found different references that were not really supporting the sentences for which they were used. Thanks! LostMyAccount ( talk) 13:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, after what's happened in Israel recently there's been a wee bit of recently activity at List of Islamist terrorist attacks. The article has some heavy problems with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which me and another editor have been slowly working on for a little while after I failed to WP:TNT it. I'd appreciate if I could get the eyes of some experienced editors on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Re_add_"2001_Indian_parliament_attack" and Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#WP:SYNTH_editing threads. As there is an editor who's not getting it and the commentary from others might help. TarnishedPath talk 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. A review of sources they've proposed to support such edit reveals that none of them specifically name "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood". Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
At the AfD in March 2023, there was consensus that entries of this list need to be cited to secondary sources rather than online satellite maps to avoid WP:OR, but people continue to ignore this rule, possibly because the in-page comment at the top of the list is not visible to those using the markup editor in a continent subsection. Should we create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which would be visible in all subsections and the only sourcing-related editnotice in mainspace? ({{ RS and OR editnotice}} is intended for use on talk pages of protected articles.) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Browsing around tonight, I arrived at this page from the Red River Valley page. Im not familiar enough with the topic to dive in too far with edits of my own, but section headings in the article of A legacy of fraud, A legacy of self-deception, A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest and a prominent Conclusions section, all without sources using those terms (and in some cases denigrating sources for NOT reaching those conclusions: [...]are largely understated in most of the literature that has developed around the treaty) makes it seem like someone's class essay being published as OR. Just hoping for some eyeballs. Like I said I don't know enough to be certain myself. - 50.234.188.27 ( talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a content dispute that I am referring from
the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please see
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft_versions_of_authorship_controversy_section. Does the following paragraph constitute
synthesis or other
original research?
A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds. [1]
The arguments for and against the inclusion of the paragraph are found in the discussion in DRN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm having a discussion with myself. Is this past the borderline of OR? I am about to review it and wish to get it right. Please ping me on your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Article Vlachs, entries 1 and 2, text: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia could not be verified in the source(s). On discussion page the editor failed to provide with clear quotes from the sources that sustain his synthesis of the material, including the naming of provinces added in his edit. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series regarding the cancelled television block known as Adventure into Fear. This conversation is long-lasting and has been at a perpetual standstill, as the page and several other pages designate Adventure into Fear as having been developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some eyes examining the conversations and the sources would be very much appreciated. ChimaFan12 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I was here accused of "original research" in the new article British possession which I have been writing. Please help me understand if this is so, because I don't think it is. I think I have used only secondary and tertiary sources for the article, and only cited primary sources 1.) to help the reader, and 2.) to provide direct quotations from the sections of legislation expressly cited by the secondary and tertiary sources. Nevertheless, the article was nominated for deletion almost as soon as I had started writing it. The wisest fool in Christendom ( talk) 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be grateful if experienced editors could look at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom as it cites pretty much no secondary reliable sources.
I've opened a new talk section there on this, but the pool of editors on the page is small so it would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I am seeking input into whether the Strictly Come Dancing (series_21)#Average chart qualifies as original research. These are not data generated by the show; these averages are calculated manually by editors. The "average score" plays no role in the competition and is not something that is announced or published by Strictly Come Dancing. When a weekly score is not out of a possible total of 40 owing to the absence of a judge or the presence of a 5th guest judge, the score is "adjusted" and then averaged in. Supporters of this chart state that this meets the criteria of WP:CALC. I would appreciate any feedback on this matter. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Page:
Involved users:
Hi. So there's a long, unresolved dispute over at the 7 nm process article, about whether Intel 7 should be in the 7 nm process, or in the 10 nm process article (and wikilinked in pages as such). The three editors named above are the participants of the most recent discussion on that article's talk page.
So, we've gone back and forth, and discussed a number of opposing points thoroughly. One point I'm not sure about, which I am requesting some assistance on, is the no original research point.
So, to put it simply, the Intel 7 process has a density of 100-106. Of the "7nm" branded nodes from the competing companies, TSMC's N7 is 91-96, and Samsung's 7LPP is 95-100. Moving on to 10nm processes, TSMC N10 has a density of 52, and Samsung 10LPP has a density of 51. The unit of all these numbers is MTr/mm2 (million transistors per square millimetre). Note, these numbers are directly from the 7nm and 10nm Wikipedia articles.
With that out of the way, the no original research point being raised by Newslinger is that out of the many reliable secondary sources talking about the Intel 7 process node that Newslinger has looked at and reviewed, most of them call Intel 7 a 10nm process node ( example), while a very few call it 7nm ( example). Newslinger claims that it is original research to categorise Intel 7 as 7nm in Wikipedia articles because the density (which is one of the core measurements of how advanced a process node is [1]) is almost as good as, if not better than 7nm processes from other companies.
I believe that this, in itself, is not original research, because it is a purely simple, factual number. It is a measurement, Intel 7 has that measurement comparing much closer to competing 7nm processes than 10nm ones, as stated in the third paragraph above. I think, claiming Intel 7 has to be 10nm because sources said so, despite that favourable measurement, is a bit like saying a 300 horsepower car's engine is less powerful than a 250 horsepower car's engine, because sources somehow claimed that, even though the 300hp engine is factually more powerful, going by that power measurement. In my opinion, these "which number is higher" calculations fall into the "Routine calculations" ( WP:CALC) section of the listed exemptions in the no original research policy.
I would like more opinions on whether this really is original research or not, as well as how much we should prioritise sources' claims over these factual number measurement comparisons. If this really is original research, then I will disregard my point of "Intel 7 is 7nm because it measures closer to other 7nm processes than 10nm ones" in the 7nm process talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Can one show that there was a major process change within Intel from its 10nm process to produce the Intel 7?That's a good question. Overall, there isn't really a density difference between 10nm SuperFin (the preceding node to 10nm ESF / Intel 7) and Intel 7, at 100.76 and 100.76–106.1 MTr/mm2 respectively. Intel 7 used to be called 10nm Enhanced SuperFin. [2] According to that reference, it basically seems to be a refresh of the 10nm process, stating 10–15% performance per watt improvements. On TSMC's side there is N7P, which brings 7% more clock speed or 10% more perf/W at same clock speed compared to N7, [3] so a similar increase in perf/watt, but still branded as a 7nm class node. And then there is TSMC N6, which TSMC doesn't seem to say anything about whether it's different or how different it is from the preceding N7+ process (with N7+ bringing modest density increase over N7), but is branded as 6nm class. [4] TSMC N6 is listed in the 7 nm process Wikipedia article (and in fact, there isn't a Wikipedia article for 6 nm process).
Its competitiveness can be mentioned in the 7nm article text, rather than listing it in a table.I think that would work as well.
References
If you search the string "The international community considers Israeli settlements", you will see that some editor or group of editors has taken the time to insert an overarching note in every settlement, not specific to the subject of the article, that settlements in the West Bank/Golan Heights are considered illegal under international law, but Israel (and sometimes, it is added, the US) disagrees with this. Without commenting on the neutrality or veracity of this statement, it seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Is it not? -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about possibly merging this notice board on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Additional input welcome at the article or the talk page discussion ( Talk:Anti-cosmopolitan_campaign#Failed verification and WP:RS issues) ( t · c) buidhe 23:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this section count as original research/synthesis?
While the second stage engines were planned to shut down at T+8:33, a frame-by-frame analysis of the SpaceX broadcast [1] shows the following sequence: at T+8:03 telemetry indicated all engines had turned off, at T+8:04 a series of faint irregular flashes of light and an expanding gas cloud first become visible, at T+8:06 the final altitude velocity update is shown, and at T+8:12 the gas cloud reaches its largest apparent diameter. After some dead air, the commentators asserted Starship was entering the coast phase at T+9:50 before finally announcing "we may have lost the second stage" at T+11:40. At T+12:20 the commentators speculated the Autonomous Flight Termination System triggered. An official analysis of the exact sequence of events is still pending.
The citation only links to the official stream, which does not contain any "frame-by-frame analysis". 91.129.104.148 ( talk) 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
References
I recently noticed
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War, and looks for similar precedents and found exactly two:
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine and
List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to me, all three seem like bizarre creations. I have to question whether these lists fall short of the notability bar for standalone lists, per
WP:NLIST, in a way that, pertinent to this noticeboard, strays too far into the realm of
WP:OR to be tenable - because ... absolutely no independent sources appear to be producing lists like this, but, rather, they all seem just cobbled together out of different news sources, most of them probably in turn based on government press releases. Most of these visits, individually, have no notability (no one would dream of creating standalone articles on them), and, in all likelihood, most had very little to no impact or relevance. So really, what's the point of gathering up this historical detritus of mundane, trivial visits that no one would otherwise remember? In the first list, there isn't even a single overlapping source between entries, so what is the thread of meaning holding this list together (aside from the incredibly lengthy and niche title specifically created to hold the information together)? On the Russian invasion lists, there are a few news stories might say 'so and so' and 'so and so' visited X, but I still don't believe this qualifies as a list topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"
, per
WP:NLIST, but rather more of a grand synthesis made up of otherwise extremely narrow and patchy pieces of news coverage.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 11:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Features many inappropriate citations to the Gospels for non-routine analysis. Not a great article in general Mach61 ( talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:LuchoCR
Is blocking edits without any base according to https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_de_Vanguardia_de_Nicaragua#Generaci%C3%B3n_del_2000 the Wikipedia article says that Francisco Ruiz founded la generación del 2000 here's what he says about that https://web.archive.org/web/20110928102314/http://www.leteoediciones.com/libros-poetas.php
LuchoCR isn't letting me add an author for which there is proof of involvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergara Acosta ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute with an editor who has been attempting to add original research to the Black rat article. This is not an area which I am qualified in, and to avoid misleading the editor or continuing discussion in an area I am not particularly knowledgeable in, I'm here to seek the help of editors who are either more qualified in this type of article, or can make a ruling on whether or not the information they are adding counts as original research.
I would appreciate any and all help to clear up this issue. -- GSK ( talk • edits) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Is "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." SYNTH given that the words "but" and "only" from the given examples have been removed? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
User deletion of chart below on the page Cardano (blockchain platform) in the revision history. Further debate can be seen on the talk page for resolution/ consensus.
Having read the standards for NOR it appears to me that this is not a fact, allegation, idea where for which no sources exist. The chart is neither analysis or synthesis and is purely statement of fact/price data. Nasdaq data source is a highly trusted stock exchange for more than 50+ years and one of the largest on the planet. No conclusion / additional bias is added.
(For clarity, Cardano and the token ADA has a value. This value has fluctuated since its launch over many years. The price data is freely available for anyone to evaluate from many differing sources online.)
I would greatly appreciate any assistance by third party to provide an objective perspective. I do not want to instigate an edit war and would prefer a third party to make revisions with commentary if deemed appropriate. If deemed fair, I would like to request the figure be reinstated. Thank you in advance. Bob ( talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Information from the article Name_of_Italy#Evolution_of_the_territory_called_"Italy": "The term "Italy" also included Liguria up to the Varo river and Istria up to Pola. All its inhabitants were considered Italic and Roman".
The source for this information is a WP:PRIMARY (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1). This is how the secondary source(T. P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions Revisited) interprets the given information: [2]
And this is the primary (Strabo, Geographica, V, 1,1) information itself(google translation): Ποσειδωνιάτου διήκουσαν, ἐπικρατῆσαν δὲ τοὔνομα καὶ μέχρι τῆς ὑπωρείας τῶν Ἄλπεων προὔβη. προσέλαβε δὲ καὶ τῆς Λιγυστικῆς τὰ μέχρι Ὀυάρου ποταμοῦ καὶ τῆς ταύτῃ θαλάττης ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων τῶν Τυρρηνικῶν καὶ τῆς Ἰστρίας μέχρι Πόλας. εἰκάσαι δ᾽ ἄν τις εὐτυχήσαντας τοὺς πρώτους ὀνομασθέντας Ἰταλοὺς μεταδοῦναι καὶ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἐπίδοσιν λαβεῖν μέχρι τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐπικρατείας. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε, ἀφ᾽ οὗ μετέδοσαν Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς Ἰταλιώταις τὴν ἰσοπολιτείαν, ἔδοξε καὶ τοῖς ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλάταις καὶ Ἑνετοῖς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπονεῖμαι τιμήν, προσαγορεῦσαι δὲ καὶ Ἰταλιώτας πάντας καὶ Ῥωμαίους, ἀποικίας τε πολλὰς στεῖλαι, τὰς μὲν πρότερον τὰς δ᾽ ὕστερον, ὧν οὐ ῥᾴδιον εἰπεῖν ἀμείνους ἑτέρας...Poseidoniatus lasted, but they prevailed until the subjugation of the Alps. and he also hired Ligistica as far as the Ovarus river and the same coast from the borders of the Tyrrhenian and Istrian regions as far as Pola. I wonder if, having made them successful, the first ones called Italians spread it to the neighboring countries, so that they would receive a reputation as far as the Roman Empire. Behold, once, since the Romans gave the Italians the equal state, glorify also the Galatians in the Alps and the Venetians, I grant the same honor, and you promise all Italians and Romans, you send many letters, the former and the latter being, where not ῥᾴδιον επεῖν amenus éteras. [3]
In relation to the secondary source but also a primary source, is this information from the article OR? Mikola22 ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Information in the article which exists in the note after Italian in context of Christopher Columbus and his Italianness. "Although the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity;"
This is information for which no reliable, published source exists in the context of the sources which talk about Christopher Columbus but also regarding the term Italian or Italians. This is what I know based on searching English sources. The only thing I know and what one editor said is that this information is based on some information of Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24 – AD 79), called Pliny the Elder.
I also researched Italian sources and found this, google translate: "La parola italiano non è sempre esistita (il che è ovvio), né (il che è meno ovvio) è nata a poca distanza di tempo da quella su cui è foggiata, cioè l’antico nome Italia. La terra che Greci e Romani chiamavano così – riferendo il toponimo a un’entità geografica dai confini variabili – non era, in effetti, popolata da italiani (itali antichissimi e popoli italici non avrebbero potuto usurpare quel termine) come non lo era l’Italia alto-medievale in cui si ponevano le basi di quella moderna. Il termine che oggi usiamo per indicare i suoi abitanti sembra dunque sorgere assieme al patrimonio linguistico che, prima di qualsiasi altro, contribuì a delinearne l’identità culturale. Cioè il volgare, alla cui sintesi moderna si darà più tardi, e si dà tuttora, quello stesso nome: italiano Questo termine è alieno – per ragioni che difficilmente possono considerarsi casuali – dall’uso dei fondatori letterari: Dante e Petrarca non lo impiegano mai, e come vedremo quella che individua nel primo il padre della lingua italiana è una formula tanto consueta quanto paradossale....The word Italian has not always existed (which is obvious), nor (which is less obvious) was born a short time away from the one on which it is modeled, i.e. the ancient name Italy. The land that the Greeks and Romans called this way - referring the toponym to a geographical entity with variable borders - was not, in fact, populated by Italians (very ancient Italians and Italic peoples would not have been able to usurp that term) nor it was high-medieval Italy in which the foundations of the modern one were laid. The term we use today to indicate its inhabitants therefore seems to arise together with the linguistic heritage which, before any other, contributed to delineating its cultural identity. That is, the vulgar, to the whose modern synthesis will be given later, and still is, that same name: Italian. This term is alien - for reasons that can hardly be be considered casual – from the use of the literary founders: Dante and Petrarca they never employ it, and as we will see the one that identifies in the first the father of the Italian language is a formula as usual as it is paradoxical. (Lorenzo Tomasin Italiano Storia di una parola) [4]
I found the same information in the note behind Italian in the article
Dante Alighieri. The information is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder, Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [
[5]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."
Otherwise, I've been looking for confirmation of this information and fact for almost two days(in English or Italian) and I can't find anything specific or in a secondary source as confirmation. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Datu likha has insisted on using their preferred version with original research/primary sources from the group Maharlika Nation, specifically about their practice and beliefs that were not reported by third party reliable sources.
Through their own words they are motivated to rectify any misconceptions about the group by including a court case ruling through a poor scan hosted in Facebook, which I think is a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
I have made the my best efforts to frame allegations about the group as allegations. Assuming the case dismissal is true, I imagine it is frustrating that no reliable media outlets have reported on it, or a clearer copy of the case is available through the National Prosecution Service (NPS) of the Department of Justice.
On the less contentious inclusion. No reliable media outlets have noted the specific of the group's beliefs on tigmamanukan and bathalaism. There are no explicit sources given on these aspects. These maybe part of the core tentants of the Maharlika Nation's internal affairs but without a source, it fails WP:VERIFY.
I have tried reaching out with the concern user on the talk page and edit summary but to no avail. I have requested page protection and has been advised by closing user Johnuniq to ask noticeboard for opinion on how to proceed on this matter. Thanks Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 08:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what noticeboard to go to but I thought this one would work. User:MonsenorNouel has been removing individuals from a list of notable Afro–Latin Americans on the basis that they don't "look" African enough. This dispute is taking place mainly on the user's talk page. When I provided reliable sources for a sample of these names which call them Afro-Latin* or in which they self-identify as Afro-Latin*, MonsenorNouel claims either that the sources are invalid, or that they do not make any claims about Afro-Latin heritage (or both). Instead, MonsenorNouel adds commentary to the article which is sourced to Ethnicelebs.com (a blog where [amateur] users research the ethnicity and genealogy of famous people).
The Ethnicelebs posts also appear to confirm that these individuals are Afro-Latin*, so I'm at a loss how to proceed here. ... discospinster talk 21:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The main subject of this article, indicated by the title, is/should be the impact of colonialism on conceptions of gender in Indigenous Nigerian cultures. The lead section indicates some ways in which this may be the case, though it's uncited. Importantly, none of the cited sections in the article discuss the impact of colonialism on Indigenous Nigerian cultures at all. Each of the sections is labelled as "pre-colonization". An earlier draft of the article also included the following sentence in the lead: "In navigating this complex terrain of colonial influence on gender roles and fluidity in Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge and respect the rich diversity of cultural expressions characterizing the nation's indigenous communities, each contributing to the ongoing narrative of gender dynamics in its own distinct manner." Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Palestinian genocide accusation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The victims section makes no mention of genocide, but other editors insist that it remains
WP:SYNTH despite the violation because good information is lost. In
Wikipedia:Edit warning it is written: Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warning.
I don't know if it applies here. Apart from that, this content that violates
WP:SYNTH should stay?
Parham wiki (
talk) 17:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This issue is previously opened in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable reference in Johor Bahru, but there seemed to be minimal participation. More review sought on this.
The sentence Johor Bahru was also the second largest GDP contributor among the first tier cities in Malaysia in 2010 uses this reference ( "Urban Regeneration :The Case of Penang, Malaysia. Putting Policy into Practice" (PDF). Khazanah Nasional: 10. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 January 2016 – via The chart of the GDP contributor is in Page 10.). Diff for the addition is [7].
It seemed like a Powerpoint slide of questionable accuracy and/or reliability. It was never mentioned where the data for city GDP came from. Official GDP data in Malaysia are available down to state-level only, not smaller-level divisions like cities ( https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-). Could this count as original research, since the purported sentence and data are not verifiable in the cited slide? Slothades ( talk) 01:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced claims regarding the actress's sexual orientation removed as unreferenced OR. 96.246.238.31 ( talk) 22:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
RusHistorian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced texts User talk:RusHistorian#Unsourced statement, [9], [10], texts supplied with some sources which do not support the text Talk:Belarusian Americans#Belarusians identified as Russian , Talk:Belarusian nationalism#Nationalists were also opposed by the local intellectuals , Talk:Joseph Semashko#Latinization . Please check their latest contribution [11] if it's sourced properly, thanks! Manyareasexpert ( talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I am having a WP:OR dispute with @ NadVolum:. They believe that the two separate estimates of Palestinian children casualties have different classifications as to whether children are defined as a person below 18 or 14 years old. They claim that this is acceptable to add because it is WP:CALC. However, there is no reference for this claim at all. Related discussion: Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox#Template talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war infobox
Ecrusized ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Some more input at Talk:British_Post_Office_scandal#'Individual_cases'? would be helpful. We are currently split 3 versus 3. The article, for a long time, had a section about individual cases affected by the scandal. This was removed based on an argument that talking about individual cases when over 700 individuals were affected constitutes WP:SYNTH. That seems to me to be a misapplication of the policy, but I thought I would seek the views of people here with more expertise! Bondegezou ( talk) 11:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
User:MyrhaanWarrior, has been adding original research content in multiple articles [12] [13] [14] [15] has decided to ignore the concerns and warnings i've placed on their talk page. Can other users explain this to them. Magherbin ( talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Maghrebin Has been deleting my wiki edits which have been verified by multiple books and first hand authors and has been pushng false information on wiki pages backed by no details which are blatant lies anyone with an ounce knowledge of East African history would know, one example is his ethno nationalist tendencies, claiming his recently created ethnic group in the early 1800's had taken part in the wars of another ethnic group they are confused for which is over 5,000 years old. I have taken the time to explain on his talk page writing paragraphs with evidences and he has refused to engage or even bother refuting me, responding by giving me false warnings And even while I did verify my information he had deleted everything repeatedly making multiple edits MyrhaanWarrior ( talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editors are disrupting the progression of the article with the pretence of some idea of policy without following the necessary policy which they are using to stop the changes that I recently made, by enforcing the notion that consesus is necessary if the sources don't have the information in for the false information or non present in the sources information to have been added to the article in the first place.
I expected the editors involved would like to and think it necessary to review my changed to confirm or find error in my changes (@ 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024) but all the editor did was revert the entire changes which has resulted in all the errors that I corrected being returned to the article. Now additionally another editor has posted a message on the Talk page, still not reviewing my changes to expect me to engage in a discussion on consensus of my "desired" changes, when the article simply now has errors in it.
Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 19:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Bon courage: we are probably moving forwards now so I retract the request Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 05:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think this is extrapolating and making inference rather than directly supported. I'd like to get additional perspectives. The prose in question is The Van Ryper ship models proved cost-effective for the government, as they helped in verfiying the accuracy of design, arrangements of naval deck fixtures, and alignment of various machinery components for larger ship constructions
, based on source text of It is impossible to estimate the money saved in the construction of large ships by use of these ship models to check accuracy of design, arrangements of deck furniture and the lead of various parts of machinery.
with regard to
this edit from the source
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ithaca-journal-van-ryper-ship-models/138720698/ The source discusses two model makers and I do not see it discussing effectiveness in a way that directly demonstrates the cost effectiveness of Van Riper models. 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Can someone check [21]? It seems rather odd. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Due to a content dispute on Eugene N. Borza, I need editors to confirm whether the following additions ( 1, 2, 3 and 4) constitute original research. Apart from these additions, it'd be great if editors could look at the whole Views section and determine whether it contains original research. Thank you. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This article makes extensive use of data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. Howecer, it appears this data is being misinterpreted by editors. Case in point the Armed conflict for control of the favelas in Greater Rio de Janeiro entry says there have been 14,383+ deaths, citing the project's Brazi page as a source. This was recently remarked on by an IP at Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Conflict for control of the favelas in greater rio. As a result of this various changes to the article have been attempted, such as this one changing the upper threshold of 2023 deaths from 6,976 to 336, then a similar change to the 2024 deaths, then a possibly ill-advised wholesale reversion of the article to a much earlier version.
However all these edits have the same problem, they involve interpretation of the data. While the Brazil page does give a total deaths for the country of 15,020 (14,625 in non-state violence), zooming in on the map shows that only 788 have occurred in Rio (plus a smattering of deaths in the vicinity of Rio). Therefore the 14,383+ figure is simply wrong. As well as this, the ACLED "dashboard" is cited consistently, for both the 336 deaths in 2023 and 10 deaths in 2024 (as well as many other entries on the list. I have absolutely no idea what options are being used to filter the data to arrive at those figures, I fear they are simply claiming all deaths in the Rio area are being lumped in as part of the favelas conflict, and the same applies for virtually every other entry on the list. Objections are met with claims such as "Those numbers are from ACLED, not mine", which ignores the entire basis of the objection. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 16:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some opinions on List of train songs. It appears to have become a dumping ground for any song that mentions trains in any way. The references are mostly to WP:ALLMUSIC or other sites that serve only to verify that the songs exist. I spot checked several and couldn't find anything in their references to suggest they had been classified as a "train song".
I think there might be a kernel of notability in the concept of the folk railroad song, but it's currently highly obscured. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Snarcky1996 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding criticism which is improperly synthesized from sources which do not direct mention either the theory being refuted or even the author of theory to Bicameral mentality and The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Skyerise ( talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
As an argument against Jaynes's proposed date of the transition from bicameral mentality to consciousness, some critics have referred to the Epic of Gilgamesh.No source cited. The rest of that para is about the dating of the epic, citing a source about the age of the epic and a source about the age of the old testament. What needs to be sourced is that some critics who? argued against Jayne's proposed date referring to the epic. The next section mentions what Jaynes wrote about the epic (as you quote above), but is followed by
His answer does not deal with the generally accepted datingwithout citing a reliable source that argues that Jaynes did not "deal with the generally accepted dating". Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A user at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)#Misleading content is insisting that content from reliable secondary sources should be deleted because it contradicts his own understanding after reading comic books featuring the character. I asked him to make a post here to settle the dispute, but he instead went to seek support at WP:WikiProject Comics. He seems to be making this argument because he believes I'm trying to emasculate the character by removing the laundry list of character feats cited to comic books (as he says here and here). Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.Note that the direct and unequivocal contradiction between the two polices; obviously, as core policy, V cannot be overridden (certainly not by the mere manual of style) and always takes precedence, meaning PLOTCITE only applies as long as the summary isn't challenged (or likely to be challenged, in the case of summaries that make obviously controversial interpretations of the text.) At best, all PLOTCITE accomplishes is lightly discouraging editors from going around challenging every single plot summary for the sake of doing so, but it can't prevent anyone from challenging the text in any specific instance or remove the requirement for an in-line citation once that challenge occurs. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
What about changing it to "several tons", without a specific number? The references would still verify it, it would be consistent with the character's usual in-story characterization (that he's really strong, even by superhero standards), and I don't think it would contradict anything. Cambalachero ( talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretationand
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.If you're using the comic books themselves or your knowledge of them to write an article about a comic book character, then you're doing it wrong. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
per definition unreliable, not according to how we do things on this site. MrOllie ( talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
moved multiple universal space-time continuums through sheer physical strength"? Rjjiii ( talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I still need responses that instruct me regarding if it is acceptable if I use the following two pages, and other similar sources, as references for Thor's powers and abilities section, so I know how to proceed here. [27] [28]
Thanks in advance for any help. David A ( talk) 08:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
At the Foot (unit) talk page in the thread "Plural : feet" there is disagreement, when describing the proper usage of the plural (fee), whether it is necessary to cite a reliable source that is specifically about word usage, such as a dictionary or style guide, or whether citing several reliable sources that just use the word "feet" in a certain context is good enough.
The suggestion from several IP addresses seems to be that a statement could be put in the article that an exchange such as
is common usage. Such a statement would only need examples from a few reliable sources that are merely using such language, without evaluating it the way a dictionary or style guide would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
{{convert|12|ft}}
→ 12 feet (3.7 m){{convert|12|foot}}
→ 12 foot (3.7 m)Seems like the consensus is that "foot" is indeed a commonly-used alternative plural - the fact that some editors consider it "colloquial" or "incorrect" isn't really relevant. Wikipedia should just describe things as they are, rather than as some editors would like them to be. All we're discussing is whether the article should list "foot" as an alternative plural to "feet" in common English usage, not that its the primary plural or anything. I see no valid reason to suppress this information. I would also note that its not common practice for demarcation of plurals to require citations at all. There's no citation in /info/en/?search=Sheep explaining that the plural of sheep is sheep for example, and that was just the first page I checked. 2.222.13.214 ( talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I take a different position on this. When someone says "six foot" they are not using "foot" as the plural of "foot". Rather, they are using the singular form in a common exception to the rules of grammar. Note how it is similar to "a six foot man"; one never hears of "a six feet man". We also hear of someone taking a "two mile run", which isn't a use of "mile" as a plural of "mile". In short, no evidence is provided here that "foot" is ever used as the plural of "foot". Zero talk 23:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@StarkReport wrote in History of Hinduism that:
In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature. ...
But after I checked one of the sources:
It seems that this is not entirely the case:
P. 183:
It is true that Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, rode to power on a wave of bloody zealotry. To defeat the great Hindu Rajput kings, whose troops outnumbered his by as many as ten to one, Babur inflamed the passions of his Muslim soldiers by calling his war against the Hindus a jihad, or holy war. To demonstrate his own commitment to Islam, Babur had his entire wine collection poured onto the ground and his wineglasses and flagons smashed before his men. This act of sacrifice is said to have infused his men with religious fervor and brought them victory at the decisive Battle of Khanua. To be sure, it probably helped that Babur's men had firearms while the Rajputs did not. In any event, after days of slaughter, the Rajputs fled the battlefield, leaving Babur triumphant over northern India.
.
P. 184
It was only under Humayun's son Akbar, and his next several successors, that the Mughal dynasty consolidated its power to become one of the greatest empires of the time. Not coincidentally, Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world. Indeed, without this turn to tolerance, it is highly unlikely that the Mughal Empire could have lasted as long as it did, or reached its dazzling heights of cultural grandeur. Conversely, the period of Mughal decline is associated with some of the most brutal episodes of ethnic and religious persecution in India's history.
.
P. 185
Akbar's patronage extended to men of all faiths. Though illiterate himself, he (like his distant relation Khubilai Khan) strove to fill his court with men of arts and learning. Among his courtiers the nine most illustrious were known as the navratna, or nine jewels of the Mughal crown. Four of these "nine jewels" were Hindu.
.
P. 186
To a surprising extent, Akbar did not favor Muslims. In war, he crushed resisting factions with the same brutality whether they subscribed to Hinduism or Islam. He attacked corruption among the Muslim clergy and initiated sweeping reforms equalizing land privileges for holy men of all persuasions. Along with Muslim festivals, he celebrated Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Defying orthodox Islamic law, he granted non-Muslims permission to repair their temples and to build new places of worship. He also decreed that Hindus who had been forced to convert to Islam could reconvert without being subject to the death penalty. Most dramat ically, in 1579 Akbar abolished the jiziya, a mandatory tax levied exclusively on non-Muslims.
.
P. 189
In 1658, the Mughal Empire came into the hands of Aurangzeb Alamgir, the third son of Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb became emperor after killing his eldest brother, Dara—whose head he sent on a platter to their dying father. Dara had been an intellectually curious, open-minded scholar with a strong interest in Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, and Christianity as well as Islam. As Aurangzeb explained, "The fear of seeing the Muhammadan religion oppressed in India if my brother Dara ascended the throne" was what compelled him to seize power.
.
P. 190
Aurangzeb's Muslim zealotry tore the fragile religious and political unity of the Mughal Empire to pieces. His vicious campaign to eradicate Sikhism—including the destruction of temples and the execution of a revered Sikh holy man (on charges of converting Muslims)—earned the Mughals the hatred of tens of thousands in northern India and paved the way for Sikh militarism.
TL;DR:
According to this source, the Mughals rose and fell with bloodshed caused by the "Muslim zealotry" of their rulers at those times. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc.
But @StarkReport only
wrote in the article that: "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
Isn't this gross source misrepresentation and cherrypicking? I haven't checked the rest of his addition, but much, if not all, of the section of the article was
replaced for this "neutral" version of his. And a lot of what he has removed seems to be critical of Islam. Isn't this also considered
WP:CENSORSHIP? —
Kaalakaa
(talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
"In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
I saw this map and was wondering if anything needs to be done. The immediate source website seems to have disappeared, the data is apparently from the US census. Without OR can one produce a map like this?
File:Absenceblacks.png JMWt ( talk) 11:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Not OR provided that the data (assuming it is reliable) can be transparently mapped to the er, map. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
After checking the two possible statistical tables that could have been used to create the map, the first thing I noticed is some counties that are highlighted in yellow are in fact missing from the tables. Examples include, but are not limited to Powder River County (30075), Terrell County (48443) and Kusilvak Census Area (02158). I also noticed the same thing regarding the other map (used in the African Americans article) which shows some 30 counties as having less than 2% when in fact they are not mentioned in the source. Is there something slightly wrong with these maps or am I missing something obvious? M.Bitton ( talk) 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Simply taking data from a reliable source and presenting it in graphical form is not OR. However, guessing extra data that is not in the source (as M.Bitton suggests) would definitely be OR. There are other arguments that might be brought against the map, for example whether the choice of 25 as a cutoff gives a fair impression, but that's an NPOV issue, not an OR issue. Zero talk 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious to hear opinions on this and similar pages. It seems to me that this is WP:SYNTH - in the sense that the page is pulling together results from competitions in an era when a "season" meant essentially nothing. Travel was obviously difficult at the time, so what actually happened was local/regional events which happened in the same year. There were champions of multiple championships, but that's still not a "season" as we might think of it today. They likely lived in countries where there were multiple events, elsewhere not so much.
Is there any value in pages which attempt to put modern language onto sporting events in the past? Is it WP:SYNTH to do this and WP:OR given the effort needed to collect the data and knit it into a coherent page? Thanks. JMWt ( talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion here where a user is arguing for the deletion for a sourced claim in the lead of the article Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that asserts the RSS drew inspiration from European Fascist movements. The claim is sourced, but the person making this argument has enumerated reasons they do not agree with the sources or various faults they find in them, which I believe is their own OR. They naturally disagree with my assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 17:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This is coming from
WP:ITNC but likely should be considered across the board. At articles like
77th British Academy Film Awards,
96th Academy Awards or
75th Primetime Emmy Awards (among many others), there is typically a section named Statistics or similar where the total number of nominations and wins by a work or other body (such as networks with the Emmys) are listed. Two possible SYNTH problems have been identified with these.
First, whether these lists being compiled by WP editors based on the nomination lists or winners lists is a violation of SYNTH, or whether that qualifies as a basic CALC. This also leads to the case when editors add in the footnotes as seen on the BAFTA film awards, which, when unsourced, feels like an attempt at SYNTH.
Second, whether these lists even belong in the articles. I can generally show that for these major awards that there is generally some reliable soruce that has shown interest to identify the most nominated or most winning work (eg for the Oscars,
this Variety articles) but these articles usually do not fill out the full list down to those that are nominated or won a minimum of 2 awards. So it still is a question of whether such a full list is appropriate given this lack of completeness in the sourcing.
It would be a good idea for community input on where the line between inappropriate SYNTH and allowed CALC would be drawn for these cases, since this is a practice reflected across nearly any major award ceremony for any media. —
Masem (
t) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)