Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Mass shootings

I encourage editors to take a look at Talk:Mass shootings in the United States #Neutral point of view. A source lists six recent mass shootings in which AR-15 style rifles were used, but Niteshift36 has stated that the source is mistaken because one of the weapons was not actually an AR-15 style rifle. Is it appropriate to "correct" this perceived error by changing the article text from "six" to "five", or does this constitute original research? –dlthewave ☎ 21:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t an Original Research issue... but one of source evaluation. Even the best sources can contain occasional errors. When an error in an otherwise reliable source occurs, the best practice is to simply NOT USE the erroneous source in that context. Base our article content (whether a specific fact, sentence, paragraph or section) on other sources.

In this case, surely there are plenty of other sources that mention how many times AR-15 style weapons were used in mass shootings. (And if NOT, then our mentioning that specific factoid seems UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Way to leave out the important part. In the discussion about this point, I provided a Washington Post article [1] that says "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles." They go on to quote someone who actually understands the firearm to say "otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.” So tell me again how it's me engaging in OR? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is OR (more specifically, WP:SYN) because you are combining two sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated by either source. We don't have a source that says "five out of ten", and it is misleading to cite the LA Times article as the source for a statistic which was compiled by you as an editor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your argument that it's synth to take the 6:10 source, then say one of their numbers is wrong and thus it's 5:10 is sound. However, since we also have established that the source incorrectly categorized one of the 6 of 10 how should that be handled? One obvious method is to say the claim is incorrect and thus remove it from the article. We shouldn't leave a known false claim in the article. Springee (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your illustrious source makes a statement that I've shown 4 other reliable sources refute. How are you still trying to defend him? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that your source says "thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles" - in other words, it's still in that family, according to them. Part of the trouble here is that "AR-15 style rifle" is not a very well-defined term. The patents on Colt's original AR-15 expired years ago and many companies make rifles with some similarities that you may or may not consider AR-15 style. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Colt patent isn't an issue here at all. The Sig MCX uses a completely different operating system. The AR15 uses a direct impingment gas system. The MCX uses a short stroke gas operated piston. Once again "has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form". Apparently you do what many reporters do, see something visually similar and make a lot of assumptions that simply are not correct. You try incorrectly presenting "all but", while ignoring the actual title: "The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15." Pretty definitive. Business Insider also reports this [2]. CNBC says "But not all recent mass shootings involve the AR-15 or its variants. The massacre of 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, for instance, was carried out with a Sig Sauer MCX, a semi-automatic rifle that is internally distinct from the AR-15, despite its similar look." [3]. Tampa Bay Times [4]. Again, try to make the case that I'm engaging in OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If RS's contradict the claim that one of the shootings was conducted with an AR-15 then we have to take that claim as in error. The article may have good information but that claim isn't good. Springee (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. -72bikers (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems like a distinction without a difference. They operate differently internally, but that's obviously not the point that the article is making. Both are modular semi-automatic rifles that fire would be classified as "assault weapons" under the 1994 law, and both guns are part of the family of guns marketed as "modern sporting rifles" by manufacturers. Time and USAToday also call the MCX "AR-15 style rifle". NPR also calls it an assault-style rifle, and quotes law enforcement sources calling it an "AR-15 equivalent". Maybe its more technically accurate to use the language from the Washington Post and call these "assault style rifles": "Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones's database" Nblund ^talk 21:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There IS a difference and that's kind of the point. Because the reporter didn't understand the difference, he made incorrect statements. That is the basis of this complaint. The complaint of OR has been disproven and this should be closed. The 1994 law is moot since it stopped being law in 2004. The MCX didn't even exist in 1994.... or 2004. Mother Jones uses a different way of counting. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference, but it's a pedantic one that isn't significant to any aspect of the gun debate. Both gun are members of the family of Assault-Style/Modern Sporting rifles. If precision is key, the issue can be solved by changing the wording: "The AR-15 and similar rifles", or "Assault-style rifles such as the AR-15" or even "Semi-automatic rifles commonly referred to as 'assault-style rifles' or 'modern shooting rifles'" Alternatively, the quote from WaPo above gets the same point across. Any of these seem fine to me and are probably preferable to changing the number. Nblund ^talk 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your point that, in the case of the Pulse shooting the differences between an MCX and an AR-15 are in consequential. I would go further and say that would hold true if we changed the MCX out for a Mini-14 or AK pattern rifle. Basically any intermediate round, semi-auto rifle with interchangeable magazines could have done similar harm. But that doesn't mean we should incorrectly state that "AR-15 style rifles" were used when that isn't the case. We also wouldn't say "a batch of contaminated Band-Aids" resulted in an outbreak of skin disease" unless it was Johnson and Johnson Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages that were involved. This is particularly significant in the AR-15 style rifle article since the MCX isn't the subject of the article. Springee (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not pedantic. The statement under discussion was that 6 AR15's were used. That is wrong. Not pedantics, just wrong. Using your reasoning, we could say that all cars are Corvettes because they have 4 tires, a motor and a seat. Now you are discussing a wording change, which is not part of the OR complaint. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Whether the rifles have differing internal mechanisms is pedantry. Tactically and functionally the weapons are identical. They fire the same round; have the same general types of accessories which make them more useful in an engagement (basically anything you can lock onto a Picatinny rail); have a similar range of barrel lengths; generate the same velocities and cause the same wounds. How the weapon is cycled, beyond 'semi-auto', is irrelevant. In a mass shooting no one cares about internal design difference. All that matters is how the weapon handles tactically and how the ammunition performs upon striking flesh. As far as non-gun-aficionados know or care if it looks more like an M-16 than an AK-47 then it is "AR-15 style" and we should not invalidate a source for that. Jbh ^Talk 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That same logic might be used to suggest a Spitfire is the same aircraft as a ME109. While I would agree the AR-15 and MCX were functionally interchangeable with respect to the crime, they aren't the same thing and the MCX is not an AR-15 and we should not suggest it is otherwise when we know better. Springee (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, what we should not do is create pedantic categorization to detract from the magnitude of the issue based on internal technical distinctions which make no difference in the political and social discussion happening around these weapons. The press and the general population are now using AR-15 style as a catch-all for guns that look similar and are used in mass shootings. Legislators, advocates and the general public are not going to say "well we had 7 massacres but of the guns used only 3 of them were AR-15 style, the other four had a different recoil system so there is not really a problem to be addressed here … but if two more of those had that damn ching-ching ringey sounding DGI piston then by god we'd really have had a problem" That is just not what the mass shooting debate is about. All seven matter regardless of how they handle gases that do not send rounds down range. Jbh ^Talk 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: and PS If one were to try to fight a Spitfire like a Messerschmidt or vice-versa. One would die. Even a cursory reading of a Wikipedia article makes it obvious they are not tactically interchangeable. The same can not be said with the two weapons we are discussing here. 05:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not pedantry. Based on your logic, a Corvette and a F150 are the same things because they both have 4 tires, a steering wheel and an 8 cylinder engine. Just because people who don't know the difference misuse the term, we don't get to ignore the actual meaning. They are "tactically identical"? What is that even supposed to mean? Most people don't care about the difference between Hong Kong/China, yet we make the distinctions. This is an encyclopedia, actual meanings should mean something here of all places.

I agree that the media is using this as a sort of catch-all, but it's probably preferable for an encyclopedia to be less loose with language where possible. Is there any objection to simply saying "AR-15 or similar rifles" or any of the other phrases I suggested above? Nblund ^talk 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with that in the mass shooting article. If there is consensus to keep the statement in general would it be an issue to add a footnote stating that one of the "6" is a rifle similar is user function (how you interact with it vs how in mechanically operates inside) but isn't an AR-15? I wouldn't be OK with such a statement in the AR-15 style rifle article (which isn't the source of this NORN question) simply because the scope is "AR-15 style rifles" not "AR-15s and similar". Springee (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that AR-15 style rifle has been improperly restricted to clones of the AR-15 rather than those "based on the Colt AR-15 design", as the article lead states. There are many elements of rifle design which can be traced through the AR-15 design and can reasonable be seen as based on but not duplicating the original AR-15. The MCX is, certainly as far as the public is concerned, based on the design of the AR-15. From a technical point of view it shares design elements like use of 5.56N ammunition, modularity, light weight for easy deployment as well as magazine design with the AR-15. These can be seen as distinct design elements which seem to differentiate the AR-15 from linages based on the AK, FN/FAL, M14 with which the AR-15's design contrasted. Jbh ^Talk 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What the general public incorrectly thinks shouldn't be a factor here. What you call technical differences aren't mere technicalities. You're just inclined to dismiss them for some reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Although if you must use poor rhetorical analogies – it would be accurate to say the Ford F150 is 'equivalent' to the Chevrolet Silverado. In truth though using analogies to pickup trucks and WWII fighters are simply poor rhetorical devices which fail to address the arguments presented. Jbh ^Talk 16:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a poor analogy. When you take mere cosmetic similarities and a few mechanical similarities, mash them together and say they're the same, you get a false equivalency. Want a closer one? While the Dodge Charger and the Ford Crown Victoria share many similarities (4 dr, full size, RWD, 8 cylinder etc), they are ditinctly different cars and no substantial parts are interchangeable between the two. Trying to force a false "equivalent" conclusion is more of s POV push than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Knowingly and repetitively adding false or misleading information to any article, no matter the reason, is by definition "Disruptive Editing." "Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours." --RAF910 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Springee: I agree on the AR15 article and I think a footnote is a sensible solution. Nblund ^talk 15:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bismuth-209

I attempted to remove the Bismuth-209#Hypothetical decay section of Bismuth-209 as original research, but my action was reverted on the basis of WP:CALC. I do not believe that it is a "routine calculation" since it involves an exponential. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a routine calculation. The question should be whether it belongs in the article at all, even if true. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221. It's a permissible calculation, but it's also ridiculous content that should probably be removed for other reasons. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that already covered by CALC? The result is obvious and correct (I assume, I haven't checked), but not meaningful. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, from another angle, taking the total amount of bismuth mined in a year and calculating how much would be left after the doubling of the age of the universe is obviously not routine in the same sense that adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are -- the math is all very simple (and so routine in one sense), but this is not something that is done routinely in the course of writing an encyclopedia article. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes badly needs review and input

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Side discussion on scope, splitting, notability, OR.

The short version is this appears to be a giant WP:COATRACK and an OR and PoV-pushing farm. It has 37 talk archive pages of constant dispute, the PoV problem of the title has been debated at least 18 times without resolution (19, counting the ongoing RM); it's been AfDed again and again, barely surviving with "no consensus" several times, and a strong case can made that it has to be split into things like Mass killings by the Soviet Union, etc., to get around the WP:FRINGE problem. That problem is that virtually no sources (just two, apparently, that other sources do not cite) seem to be trying to equate or inter-relate democidal and other mass-killing actions by various governments that happen to be communist, and determine communism to be the cause, but our article is giving this fringe view in WP's own voice, then working in material from RS that do not hold that view at all, as if they do. That's patently WP:SYNTH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Terminology" section is definitely an original research and should be deleted. With regard to splitting, it makes no sense, because every separate topic already has their own articles.

The article contains some general theorisings which creates a visibility of the subject's notability. However, all this material already presented in Black Book of Communism, Democide and Red Holocaust articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish's remarks. I believe that that the talk page @ Mass killings has become a category 5 POV storm. Anybody can jump into the discussion and present their own opinion ie.OR that is not supported by a reliable source. This BS storm should stop and only reliable sources should be discussed. Please lets take the time to familiarize ourselves with the sources, the books are out there on the internet for sale.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Arabic-Russian transcription table

There has been a disagreement about the table in Cyrillization of Arabic. It started out with what looked like a hoax, but its current version is superficially more acceptable: it is adapted from the table in the corresponding article on the Russian wikipedia. For each Arabic letter that table gives the Russian scholarly transcription, as well as the letter (or often enough several letters) used in the practical orthography. The trouble is that our article ignores most of this content and simply picks one of the practical variants of each letter and then presents the whole thing as though it were a single coherent system. Isn't such a selection a case of OR? (That's leaving aside the question of using another wikipedia as a source).

I see two acceptable solutions: either to remove the table (which I did, but one editor has adamantly objected), or to translate the whole Russian table, including all the variants, the prose text at the top and the explanatory footnotes (I wouldn't object if others do that but I'm not willling to do that myself unless I've checked the sources of the Russian article, and that's not something I've got the resources to do at this stage). Is there anything about the whole concept of original research that I'm misunderstanding here? Any thoughts anyone? – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Hoax" is a hyperbolic description. In its original form the conversions listed could be found on the Russian article, which is reliably sourced (so no we're not "using another wikipedia as a source") – the selection was just odd. You complained about it being unsourced, so I added sources. You complained about the selection of uncommon Cyrillic variants, so I replaced them with the more common ones. You complained about the Cyrillic spellings of the letters, so I corrected them. We agree that the current version is imperfect. Instead of continuously coming up with new reasons to remove it, why don't you help me improve it? – Joe (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Eric Turkheimer

I am concerned about a sentence in the "Research" section of the article on Eric Turkheimer (which I might add is a BLP). The sentence in question, about a failure to replicate Turkheimer et al. (2003) is sourced to this paper and was added by Deleet. I have expressed concern that the sentence is WP:OR on Talk:Eric Turkheimer, but Deleet has dismissed this; I still want this issue to receive more scrutiny and for other editors to assess whether they think the content in the article violates WP:OR or not. Everymorning talk to me 18:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Does the Environmental inequality in Europe article have WP:SYNTH issues?

Does the Environmental inequality in Europe article have WP:SYNTH issues?

Please see article talk page for full history of the content dispute. There have been claims that the entire article is a WP:SYNTH. This claim has also been used as rationale for blanking large sections of the article (see edit history; December 2017).

Thank you, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly the synth on this one runs deep. I mean, look at the "Germany" section, for example. Consider this rambling paragraph, which is nearly half of the section:

 The systematic targeting and genocide of Romani and Sinti communities in Germany during the Holocaust was not officially recognized until 1982. Despite having a recorded presence in German-speaking territories since 1419, many Romani and Sinti were denied or stripped of citizenship following the war. In absence of comprehensive reparation or conciliation processes, Romani and Sinti in Germany have experienced ongoing violence, harassment, and marginalization within a broader context of environmental discrimination.

Seriously? The essayist WP:SYNTHed the National Socialist Holocaust, through which the National Socialists killed about half the Gypsies of Europe, into an article ostensibly about "the environment". Look, I think we all can agree the Holocaust was a horrible thing and a genocide of the Gypsies, but the fact it got dragged into this article goes to show the whole essay is a hopeless mess of WP:SYNTH and in needs of a serious re-write, from top to bottom. XavierItzm (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Early Christianity and incest

See Talk:Early_Christianity#"Incest". This is the contentious edit in question.

The other editor and I have accused each other of original research by misrepresenting a source's acceptance or suspicion of ancient sectarian claims. A third (at least) voice is needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Negative reviews of the ONLY source in the literature. It is sourced to apparently a specious introduction to an appalling translation. Lacking an appropriate quality source this is garbage OR. (And to let you know, my personal belief is that the low quality source is "right," but is not appropriately high quality for the claims, and the claims are wrongly put as for whose opinion and there is 90% too much weight put upon them). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Abstract expressionism

This article for some time has included two lists of painters in the field, categorized as "Major" and "Other". The lists are entirely unsourced, both as to the characterization of the artists' work as falling into the field and as to whether the artists' stature/relationship to the field is "major" or "other". The problem was raised, but not resolved, a few years ago, and the defense of the lists was not based on RS or verifiability policy. We don't generally do this in other fields, scientific or artistic; there are no such lists in Set theory or Symphony or Science fiction. The enterprise is fundamentally unencyclopedic (not listing itselfbut comprehensively deciding who is a "major" artist and who is not). Just settling on the criteria would itself likely be original research, and certainly measuring each artist against the criteria would be. I've removed the lists, but they've repeatedly been reinstated without any policy justification, despite the undeniable NOR, NPOV, RS, and verifiability failures. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually we very often do this, in lists and articles (let alone categories) - I'm obviously not going to give examples for HW to go and duff up. I'd say it's pretty normal in arts articles on movements etc. Very often such lists have been moved off to a list, which might be a solution here. We have List of symphony composers, indeed a whole category of Category:Lists of symphonies, as well as a 98-strong Category:Set theorists and of course List of science-fiction authors. Here, the groups, which are perhaps misnamed, cover different things:

"Major artists: Significant artists whose mature work defined American abstract expressionism:"

"Other artists: Significant artists whose mature work relates to the American Abstract Expressionist movement:"

- among other things, I think you have to be American to be in the first group. It is not a quality judgement, though it may seem like that. So that point is incorrect. It would of course be possible to reference the lists, but as was pointed out on article talk, that will take time, as both sections are long (perhaps too long). I suggest HW follows normal procedures and tags them first, rather than just deleting. But we know that is not his style. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with having a moderately-long list of abstract impressionists in the article, but the "major" and "other" designations do cross the line into OR unless we have reliable sources that describe them as such. Generally we should include a few of the most influential or defining artists in the prose for the purpose of describing the topic to the reader and list everyone else alphabetically or by year. –dlthewave ☎ 01:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, the obvious solution would be to simply remove the "major" and "other" labels. There's no need to delete content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• "I won't provide examples because nasty old Wolfowitz will just refute them". That's not hardly convincing, it's more an admission that Johnbod's argument doesn't hold water. "Normal procedure", per WP:V, is that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. And deciding which artists are "significant", what work is "mature", and which work "defines" a field rather than merely "relate" to the field are plainly critical value judgments that may not be presented in Wikipedia's voice but require identification and attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Johnbod is correct, Hullaballoo needs to stop deleting the work of other editors, when all he/she needs to do is add a tag. Better yet, instead of waisting everyone's time on threads like this (and so many others), he/she can help improve the article(s) by finding a source and adding it to the article. Coldcreation (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The onus is on those who want to include disputed material to provide a valid reference. Claiming an artist is a 'major' artist in a field is a critical claim that requires an explicit reference. Absent a reliable source it can be removed, if you want to keep lists of 'major artists'. Or it can be reworked to 'examples of artists in the field' which would only require a source that they are in that field. Generally if a blue-linked article contains a valid reference (so the artist biography in this case) for a non-contentious claim, its not always required to duplicate the ref in lists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about Italian football list

Hi everyone, first of all sorry for my English. Reading List of most expensive association football transfers, I was reminded of something I would ask of you. What do you think about the list / evolution / progression of the most expensive transfers of Serie A, but starting from 1930s-1940s (ie the birth of professionalism)? Obviously each transfer will be associated with at least one historical and verified source. I tell you that a "global" list (for example from all over Europe) of transfers is practically impossible to draw, because we should cross the historical sources of each nation (if there are any) and then compare the different currencies! If it is to be drawn up, it can only be done by country in my opinion. I would to know if an article like this (basically a list) is or is not an original research. I tell you that there are serious sources on the web about this ranking/list concerning only Serie A; however, there is no complete source that starts from the beginning of professionalism. Thanks! --94.162.39.83 (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC) moved from Wikipedia talk:No original research by user:Meters

Note that this IP's first two attempts to make this edit were blocked because they tripped the "Fuerdai vandal" edit filter. Meters (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And a few minutes before that a named user's edits were similarly blocked by the edit filter. I'm not familiar with the Fuerdai vandal so I don't know if these were false positives as they claimed. Meters (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My edits were blocked because I've write a phrase that I cannot report here, because it's impossible to introduce it by filter block action. The phrase is Wel, I would to know (change Wel to Well and try yourself: the filter blocks you). --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Meters, Wikipedia says: Be polite, and welcoming to new users. You're treating me like I'm a bandit and you are a cop. I don't understand really. I believe you are an immature person. --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was a false positive there's no problem (other than a suggestion not to keep attempting to make a blocked edit, and not to edit war over adding off topic comments to a talk page). As I said, I don't know anything about t that vandal. I left the comments because I moved the material here and I don't want any blow back if it turns out that this post is part of a vandal's work. I did not call call you a vandal. The edit filter designed to catch a particular vandal's edits caught your edits.. And now that you have descended to personal attacks, I'm done. Please read WP:NPA. Meters (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Was it necessary to report what I did or not? I'm here simply for a question. I'm not here to be followed by a shadow telling me what to do, what I do not have to do in my every move. --94.162.39.83 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The challenging issue is most expensive. Is a transfer the most expensive of the year because a source (newspaper, magazine, sports almanac) said it is? If that's the case, no problem. Is it the most expensive of the year because we haven't found a source for a more-expensive transfer? That's where we're hitting the realm of original research. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Of course, for first years (1930s-40s) we need a clear newspaper source reference. I think for next transfers we don't necessary need a source tell us this is the new record, but it's necessary having a source tell us the transfer cost is higher than the record at that time. In any case, I'm pretty sure the newspapers should also clearly state that this is the new record, but it could also happen that for some transfers this statement is not reported, but we can reconstruct it. Am I right? --94.162.39.83 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, provided I understand your question correctly. Suppose transfer 2 is higher than transfer 1, which previously held the record. I believe your question is whether we can assume that transfer 2 is a new record and report it as such, because we have a source saying it is higher. The answer is no, because there could have been a transfer 3, which took place between transfers 1 and 2, that was higher than both of them. Then transfer 3 would have broken the record, and transfer 2 would have done nothing. So no, we can't assume that the second one broke the record just because it was higher than a previous record. We need a source saying that the particular transfer in question was the one that broke the previous record. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Clear. Thanks. --94.163.72.27 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reproductions of studies or other such publications

Over recent weeks a number of articles have been created which are based on previously published papers issued under public license. The Wikipedia reproductions follow the line of thought of those papers, the flow, reproduce entire passages of text. Examples include: Media independence (for which I have raised an AfD), Human rights and encryption, Online youth radicalization, Online hate speech, Multi-stakeholder governance, Media pluralism. Those articles are very closely aligned to previously published works, in this case published by UNESCO. As they are under free license and properly attributed, there are no immediate copyvio concerns. I do believe, however, there are a number of policies and guidelines that are actually being touched on: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPAPERS.

• WP:OR: the policy stipulates that Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. The key question here is, does WP:OR get resolved plainly by the fact that an entire body of work has been published by a government/organisation/person elsewhere or does it persist as OR by proxy if the work reproduced on Wikipedia remains close to the original work (as it does in this case)
• WP:NPOV: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective, incorporating all available views and give them appropriate weight. There are two concerns here: 1) if an article is very close to one published work (even though that has many secondary references) can the Wikipedia article even be perceived as neutral given it is aligned to ONE original synthesis and 2) how to assess if articles written by orgs/govts etc are inherently neutral or have systemic bias (as anything from official sources is always a compromise of political processes at the time). The transcription of those articles into Wikipedia may also have certain WP:COI elements.
• WP:NOTPAPERS: this stipulates that Wikipedia should not a depository of scientific papers. In this case, not the entire paper was published, there has been some redaction. However, it remains close.
  

Most of those articles are very complex and sometimes on sensitive political/society topics and an individual assessment - especially about inherent neutrality (or lack thereof) - may be a complex and time consuming task for the community of laypeople. If it is believed there are no OR or NOTPAPERS concerns, the NPOV side remains. As a proper review of such papers should take place prior live publication, it may be a thought to require sending such articles through AfC similar to COI editing. I appreciate the thoughts of the community. Many thanks. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to any sourced text, as it mostly prevents Wikipedia editors from publishing their own ideas on any subject matter.: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. ... The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is of far more valid concern here. Due to our requirement for an "impartial tone", most texts have to be modified to avoid laudatory or disparaging terms.: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• And COI might come into it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to make clear, the content added from UNESCO is not from scientific papers, they are all secondary and tertiary sources and include a lot of academic references, so WP:NOTPAPERS doesn't seem relevant. The content is not being added to articles about the organisation, but sharing the knowledge from the organisation in its areas of expertise. John Cummings (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

However they have been brought into a certain context by the organisation that compiled this synthesis (in this case the UNESCO). So strictly speaking the article title should be "Media independence as viewed by UNESCO". While I regard the UN/UNESCO highly, there will be many people on this planet who don't agree with that certain view of the world. A different example. Consulting firms regularly churn out all sorts of papers. I have just downloaded a random paper from one of the big 4 consulting firms. This happens to be an overview of next generation automotive technology (autonomous cars etc). Very similar to the UNESCO papers, it is primarily based on a review of other sources. So (copyrights aside), would we be happy to convert this into an article about autonomous cars (again, putting aside this article already exists)? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the articles that have been created are locked and improvements can be made by other people, the articles contain a significant number of references (40 being the lowest I'm aware of). As with any reuse of existing text on Wikipedia, the consulting firm's text in your example as the basis of an article would be assessed on the same criteria as any other Wikipedia contributors content. John Cummings (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is true for every Wikipedia article, however we regularly don't admit articles that are closely aligned or where the author may have vested interests. UNESCO and the UN in general are primarily political organisations with an agenda to form opinions on certain topics. They are not neutral - see UNESCO#Controversies and Criticism of the United Nations. The fact that the articles appear to have diverse sources is secondary if the selection of sources and the line of thought of the article is aligned to ONE "master source". We don't know how those sources have been selected, if they are indeed independent of UNESCO in this case, etc. Those are all the same concerns that I would have with any "promo piece". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose creation of articles copying from such texts. My take is quite simple, really: Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and not a depository of indiscriminate information either. This is yet another Pandora's box-in-waiting if we allow the practice to officially widespread. Pointedly, the articles that gave rise to objections and this discussion are the work of a political sciences grad.student, who has infested Wikipedia with a bunch of them. And I won't even go into the much larger wastage we are promised by such practice (political disagreements, propaganda, etc.) -The Gnome (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

These articles are tertiary publications summarizing the relevant literature. Consequently had they been written by Wikipedia editors, the articles would have met no original research, reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies. The only conceivable reason for not allowing them would be notability, which should be carried out on a case by case basis. TFD (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

State atheism - mostly WP:SYNTH?

This article designates real, factual events, under its State atheism title, as State atheism, yet next to none of the sources cited use this term. The article talk page records one contributor's analysis of one section of this article (since removed), which turned out to be almost completely WP:SYNTH, which is a good representation of the rest. No tertiary sources mention this term, nor present the facts therein in this way. I expect this to be tested.

To be clear, this article was written from a Christian Evangelist/Apologist 'atheist atrocities fallacy' POV, as an attempt to blame history's worst atrocities on 'atheism'; the article presents this accusation as 'common knowledge' without ever mentioning its POV-specific source (even in the description of the 'State athiesm' term's origin).

One section of this article, that concerning the Soviet-era 'Godless brigade' (Союз воинствующих безбожников - 'league of (the) militant Godless'), might be retainable, although 'State atheism' is not a precise or widely-used translation for describing it. In any case, this relatively minor (and short-lived) Soviet movement cannot be made to represent the entire Soviet-dictatorship 'effort'... and, again, no reliable sources do this.

I'd suggest reducing the article to this one section, and/or rewriting the article as the Christian Evangelist/Apologist accusation it is, but perhaps this should be the topic of a discussion. TP ✎ ✓ 09:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An objective examination/input would be appreciated. TP ✎ ✓ 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on the comments in the past RFC at Talk:State atheism#RfC: What to do with this article?, opened by the same editor (and closed not in their favor), and other comments on that talk page, I get the distinct impression that this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I do not see evidence in the present article of Christian POV or blaming of these atrocities on atheism. Perhaps its just a matter of correlation that a state that becomes so authoritarian as to outlaw religion is likely to be a state that flexed its might against its population in other ways. The term "state atheism" seems to be covered in scholarship. I think the OP is confusing WP:SYNTH with the normal process of writing an article which involves bringing information from several sources together. SYNTH is more about particular misleading statements, so maybe OP could point out some they think are problematic. -- Netoholic @ 10:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but my earlier ham-handed attempts to draw attention to the article doesn't mean that there's 'nothing to it'. In your 'scholarly' results, you'll see that most (if not all) of them are pro-religious authors and publications; 'State atheism' is a neologism used practically only by these (few, if any, reliable (sectarian) secondary sources use the term, yet even this fact is unmentioned in the article). And providing evidence of something absent is pretty difficult: how, other than indicating the article and its reference themselves, am I to indicate that the reference cited almost never contains the term 'State atheism'? By the title, the article would imply that everything under it 'is' State atheism. And, again, the talk-page synthesis of a now-removed section of the article is a good (and testable) demonstration of the method used throughout the article... perhaps it is not WP:SYNTH, per se, (perhaps WP:COATRACK? I don't WikiLawyer); all I know is that most of the article's claims (that the events indicated 'are' "State atheism") are unsupported by their sources. TP ✎ ✓ 12:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a neologism. It seems to have been in use ever since the practice has, though grown in recent decades probably along with professional study of it. I believe others on the talk page have made similar restorations of the neologism claim. --Netoholic @ 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Outside of its longer-standing use as a (rough) translation of "Godless brigade", it is... so, do you mean to say that the term is in wide use by non-sectarian, mainstream, reliable, secondary and tertiary sources? If it isn't, it's a neologism, and/or being used as one. Again, it's hard to provide evidence of it not being in such publications. And the rest of my point? TP ✎ ✓ 13:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I wasn't aware of that Google had an ngram analyser... thanks a million! TP ✎ ✓ 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(after days of no reply) Well, unless more attention is brought to the article, it will be impossible to make changes there (it is 'protected' by its creators). What else (than here) can one suggest: an (other) RfC? TP ✎ ✓ 08:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope... when you have made several attempts (in different forums) to convince others that something is problematic, and no one agrees... then it is time to accept that you won’t change things by arguing further. Beating a dead horse is never the solution. Accept that you “lost” the argument, move on and work on other articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If the points raised don't stand to testing, then we can talk about the 'methods' of the contributor bringing them up. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to declare that your complaints haven't been resolved simply because no one succeeded in convincing you otherwise. Basically no one agrees with you. Consensus is firmly against you. Move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

More of the same.

So it's 'okay' to start a 'Bindidddle resistance' article, and fill it with sourced facts pertaining to, say, the Boer war, backed by sources none of which mention or use the term 'Bindiddle resistance'? That's what this article does.

And this sort of misuse of Wikipedia to spread 'truth' is most often organised (as when reason and verifiablility are absent, only !vote and ('gang'-)protectionism remain), so of course consensus is going to be against whoever attempts to challenge it. And this problem is common to many similar mid-to-low-level articles on Wikipedia... as even this page shows. TP ✎ ✓ 04:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello? TP ✎ ✓ 14:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If there are multiple sources that describe elements of a "resistance" and attribute it to a "Bindiddle" group, then there does not need to be a specific source using the exact phrase to describe it or title it as a "Bindiddle resistance". Of course, if there is a different common name used by sources, we tend to prefer that, but such a name has to be demonstrable as the primary name for the term. bd2412 T 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not even a question of exact phrase; the article would pin the listed atrocities (that sources attribute totalitarian/anti-religious actions to communism, to the Soviet regime, etc.) on 'atheism'. This POV (accusation) can only be found in evangelist and apologist opinion pieces, but the article would have readers believe that this term (and its attribution) is widespread common knowledge and fact (thus mentioned in reliable second and third-source references)... it is not at all. TP ✎ ✓ 12:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

reading academic citations

In this edit, Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) seems to conclude that the oldest paper cited in a 2015 paper for a certain point necessarily reflects first study on that point. I don't think there is text in either article that make the claim of "first". Admittedly I quickly skimmed both and could have missed text. I attempted to tag it "failed verification" for this reason, but Prokaryotes just reverted the tag and pointed to the fact its the oldest cite in the later paper and in the edit summary states there aren't any older papers. That sounds like a leap to a conclusion combined with original research to me. What do you think? Some otherwise uninvolved eds who watch for OR would be useful here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is how scientific papers are written, to clear things up, a Yale article noted, "In 1969, Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko developed a simple energy-balance theory of climate that captured a key feature of polar amplification." http://www.yalescientific.org/2016/06/ice-in-action-sea-ice-at-the-north-pole-has-something-to-say-about-climate-change prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at any of the papers, but judging entirely on what has been presented here, I can note: 1) If a papers says that MD developed a certain model in 1969 it doesn't automatically follow that he's the first person to have done so; 2) If his 1969 paper is earliest one cited in a text that is a comprehensive historical overview of a certain topic then this might indeed suggest that he's the first to have done any influential work on that topic, but it doesn't show it; claiming so is a textbook case of OR. If the person's work has been influential then there's bound to be sources out there that explicitly say so. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The National Science Foundation-funded study appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 45 years after atmospheric scientists Mikhail Budyko and William Sellers hypothesized that the Arctic would amplify global warming as sea ice melted.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1041/nasa-satellites-see-arctic-surface-darkening-faster or

"The effect of solar radiation variation on the climate of the Earth," published in 1969 was one of the first theoretical investigation of the ice-albedo feed back mechanism

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/budyko.htm

Notice that there are two authors noted in the literature for this mechanism, those are Mikhail Budyko and William D. Sellers, because they published both on the same topic. However, Sellers submitted his publication two months after Budyko (six months later published), which you can read from the studies header publication dates - other authors (I came across three references in other publication) cite always Budyko first. On the related pages, I pointed this out mentioned both, ie. Polar amplification and History of climate change science.prokaryotes (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala wrote "If his 1969 paper is earliest one cited in a text that is a comprehensive historical overview of a certain topic then this might indeed suggest that he's the first to have done any influential work on that topic"

This review cites Budyko first

He published an influential article in the English‐language journal Tellus in 1969 (Ref 51) which advanced a simple energy balance model highlighting the sensitive nature of the earth's contemporary climate. The model suggested that relatively small variations in the level of incoming solar radiation could have marked consequences for the earth's heat balance leading to periods of significant cooling or warming via its effect on sea ice. His ideas displayed overlap with the work of the US physicist, William D. Sellers who was based at the University of Arizona. While more complex than Budyko's approach, Seller's energy balance model (Ref 52) was similar in many respects, and their shared emphasis on the possibility of a ‘runaway positive feedback’ linked to the global climate system attracted a great deal of attention

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.412 prokaryotes (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The first reference from above cite reads, "Sea ice loss affects Arctic temperatures through the surface albedo feedback (Budyko 1969; Sellers 1969), again mentioning Budyko first. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2489-1.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and just removed the suggestion that he was the first to publish on this topic, because this is getting way too complicated, and I really don't have the time to defend this super close timing issue here. If he earns the honor to be first, because he submitted his papers first, then I guess someone else will point this out in the future. prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good call. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically he was first, the question is if he shares this with Sellers together. prokaryotes (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hadith collection headings - primary source or secondary source?

Hello,

Would the headings above the hadiths on http://cmje.usc.edu/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/004-smt.php be considered a primary source or secondary source? My opinion is that:

• The actual matn (Prophetic narration) are primary sources.
• The chapter headings are not narrations, rather notes by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (hadith compiler), and are secondary sources and it is allowed to derive rulings from them without violating WP:OR. Your thoughts on this?

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The specific edit you would like to make would allow for a better answer but based on what you have said: That site seems to be a collection of English translations of primary source material. Regardless, headings are not secondary sources. A heading is a label, it does not provide analysis, synthesis or interpretation. The sole thing it may be useful for is, assuming WP:DUE,WP:WEIGHT, etc. one may be able to say –'Author X has chosen to group (hadiths) together (as)' – but only if the source has some commentary on why they were so grouped.

I am not sure what you mean by "derive rulings from them". It sounds like you intend a construction like Because (some heading says) and (some other heading says) we may therefore say (something not said in source). This is expressly the type of thing intended by not allowing original research. WP:NOR prohibits a Wikipedia editor from doing any form of analysis, synthesis or interpretation of source material. Whether that material is nominally primary, secondary or tertiary is not relevant. Jbh ^Talk 00:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For example, there is a chapter titled "Chapter 200: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PLASTER THE GRAVE OR CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING OVER IT". If I were to write in a Wikipedia article "It is prohibited to build shrines over graves in Islam.", citing that heading, does this violate WP:OR? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At most it might be possible to say that particular scholar has determined it to be so but that would only be possible if there were no nuance in the chapter i.e. some grave coverings may be haram but others only makruh. All in all I would advise against it. Also, I would regardless of technicalities consider any centuries old compendium of hadith to be WP:PRIMARY because the interpretations, accepted and rejected isnads etc will vary from scholar to scholar and the acceptance of a scholar's work from school to school so it is very unlikely any universal claim could be made from such. Then there are the various ways others have interpreted things as insight and understanding changes through the centuries. Not to mention the differences of acceptance between Sunni and the various Shi'a sects or even the various differences in Sunni interpretations. For instance Sufi shrines are an obvious counter-example to the statement 'shrines are forbidden in Islam'

In short it is not possible to make a universal claim of something being true for all of Islam based on the work of a single work, no matter how respected. I am sure there are various scholarly books which discuss these things. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! So, is it permitted to quote the chapter title in the following manner without deriving rulings and to abide by WP:OR: 'Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj placed three ahadith under the following heading: "Chapter 200: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PLASTER THE GRAVE OR CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING OVER IT".'? Furthermore, I have found some reliable resources that cover this topic from the prohibitionist viewpoint but would like to explore all sourcing options. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Bump, @Jbhunley:. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq: The best I can do is give you my opinion above without seeing the specific edit, in context, in an article. You can ping me from the article talk page but I will not be around much for several days or maybe weeks so my response will likely be slow. I would suggest that the use of headings be limited to discussion of the specific work. There are also issues of WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to consider ie why does it matter and why does it matter that it is the case in this work as opposed to others. Jbh ^Talk 22:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Okay, thanks! – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking for outside opinion on these edits

On Talk:Lachlan_(name)#Origins I've tried to explain the concept of original research to another editor. I've reached out to WP:Third Opinion where another editor agreed with my assessment. I'm now reaching out here for further opinions.

Background. The article is about the name Lachlan, an Anglicised form of the Gaelic Lachlann. A variant of this Gaelic name is Lachann. Another editor's own view—unsupported by any source—is that the Gaelic names are entirely different, and that in Scotland the true Gaelic form of Lachlan is Lachann. As a result, the editor has progressively skewed the article by inserting synthesised arguments and personal research to prove this point of view.

In this edit, the editor makes note of a proverb he's cherry-picked from a nineteenth-century book, and asserts that it is an "old bardic proverb" and evidence that Lachann was "particularly popular" in the Hebrides. The source of the quotation gives no context whatsoever for the proverb. It's only the editor's opinion that this primary source proves anything about the name's popularity.

In the same edit, the editor takes it upon himself to critique the coverage of the names Lachann and Lachlann given by a reliable source (Black's Surnames of Scotland) because it "begs further scrutiny". The editor crafts a counterpoint to Black about a clan chief named Tearlach, and then criticises the layout of Black's book. The editor further notes more proverbs he's gathered, and adds his own speculation about how the date of these proverbs is "unknown", adding "Whatever the date, it is clear it was not written by a Maclean or Maclean bard, who would never denigrate the family of their patron. It is also unlikely the Macleans would use the degraded version Lachann if it originated from a verse that insulted them, but they had no qualms using it". So the editor has synthed a fact about a chief's name, and added some other critical and irrelevant observations about a reliable source. He's further combined this with personal conjecture about the age and context of more primary sources.

With this edit, the editor cites a Gaelic dictionary that was published one hundred and ninety years ago. It neither mentions the names Lachlann or Lachann. It does however give the word "lach" as "a duck, a wild duck, a drake", which the editor uses as evidence that the name Lachann must mean "Wild Ducks". As a result of this concocted etymology, the editor concludes "There is no evidence or suggestion that it is related to the Gaelic name Lachainn/Lachann". The editor also throws in an out-dated (and incorrect) etymology for the Gaelic name Eachann. So the editor has again mined another out-dated book, this time as way to create his own preferred etymology, and tops it off with more synth about another name, all as a means to prove his point of view.

And now the editor's cherry-picking nineteenth-century editions of parish registers, privy council records, prisoner lists, and tenant lists. So more personal research mined from primary sources, mixed together with the editor's own observations and analysis.

My efforts to explain "original research" on the talkpage have failed. The article has become a badly formatted mess of bizarre proverb-based rebuttals, personal speculation, concocted/incorrect etymologies, and an undue collection of muster rolls and lists of random MacLean clansmen! It's almost funny how obviously unacceptable it is. But it's so frustrating when you're alone with someone who refuses to get the point.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh. I see that the situation is a bit complex. Perhaps next time, you can condense the request to edits and lack of sourcing or synthesis of a source. This will help others get you responses more promptly.

Now onto the case, original research (OR) involves claims without sources and synthesis (SYN) involves combining sources to make claims not found in the sources or making claims not explicitly mentioned in the sources. Some of the conjecture from User:Theirishslave does look like SYN with quite a bit of explaining by User:Theirishslave. Using the census (bad source either way for this topic) and dictionaries and making combinations of arguments that are not explicitly made by the sources is definitely OR and/or SYN. In wikipedia, all non-obvious claims must be sourced and the sources must make the connections and arguments explicitly.

I would recommend that you ask for quotes in the sources so that everything is transparent. That way you and User:Theirishslave can see if a source actually says the explict claim or not. If the sources do not make the explicit claims or arguments that User:Theirishslave is putting in the article, then they do not belong in the article. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the request should have been more concise. As I understand it, another editor wants to add claims based on their analysis of information, without a reliable source that makes the same conclusion. That is original research. TFD (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Sorry about the wall of text. I was just woundup with frustration at that point. The article and talkpage have been quiet since.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it original research to cite the plot of a TV show to refute an incorrect statement made about that plot by a third party?

See the discussion here: Talk:Manhunt: Unabomber#Unsourced addition. This is the addition that was removed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the source implies that the show said Fitzgerald was present at the arrest. It merely states that fact to say that Fitzgerald's role was not that major. So you can rewrite the text to reflect the source. To answer your general question, when secondary sources misrepresent primary sources, we should not use them, or at least not repeat erroneous statements. TFD (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Read literally, Stejskal's statement is criticizing the show for focusing on Fitzgerald, and not for any alleged factual inaccuracies. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the content of the source should be reflect the claims explicitly made in the source. But there are some problems. 1) The source does not seem to discuss a plot point and relevance would be the only thing to look at and also 2) the commentary edit is clearly a wikipedia editor's interpretation without a source. #2 is OR for sure. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

I was looking for the Metropolitan area of Trivandrum city. It's hard to find. Then i came across this source here: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/3214_PART_B_THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.pdf. It's published by the Directorate of Census Operations of Government of India. So it's a reliable source and it has the Metropolitan area data of the city in it. The only problem is that they listed the area of each census towns separately. The total area is not in the document. So you need to add the total area manually. Is that original research? I have no connection with the source. So is there any way that i can use this source in the article, by using reference notes or something? Thanks in advance. AG47 ^Talk 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just basic arithmetic (addition). WP:CALC says basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers are allowed here. But I need another editor's opinion. Here is a document with the total addition done. (here). All the data except the total added figure is in the census source given above. AG47 ^Talk 10:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That just seems like basic addition. Provided that maybe a footnote is provided I see no issues with compliance with WP:CALCGaruda28 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am having trouble reading through the source. If it identifies which municipalities constitute the metropolitan area and separately lists the population for each one, then adding them is simple arithmetic. But if the list of municipalities comes from somewhere else, then it is synthesis. Different sources may draw different boundaries for the metropolitan area. TFD (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@TFD Yes it's confusing. But it's easy. It's a 450 page document. But all the data we need is on one single page of the document. It's page 30 of the handbook. (page 37 of the pdf file). The full data we need is under the heading "URBAN". The population and area is also given in the same page. You just need to add the census towns and municipalities under Thiruvananthapuram UA together (like i did in the document given). In India, urban area is calculated by adding adjacent municipalities and Census towns with the city. So you need to know the census tows to do this. It is also available in the same website (here) and it's also available in the state's (Kerala's) census handbook (here (194 MB document). You don't need to take any data from these documents. All the data (population and area) are available in the source i given. The different boundaries is not a problem here as it is not from different sources. It's from the same website and the links to these data is from here. This is why i asked is there any way to use this source by using reference notes or something? Thanks. AG47 ^Talk 12:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The previous page (29) shows totals for population. I don't mean to be argumentative, but why do you assume that the urban districts are all part of the metropolitan area while the rural districts are not? There could be rural districts surrounded by urban ones and vice versa. TFD (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@TFD No. page 29 is about the marginal workers. See the heading in that page. Page 30 is the total population. :) In India, the Urban Agglomeration or Urban area is the Metropolitan area. It is defined by the government as "urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns." So, there may be some rural areas surrounded by urban ones. But they are not added to the metropolitan area of the city. The census towns (CT) are urban. The government selects the adjoining census towns under Thiruvananthapuram metro region. So it is already defined by the government. To see the census towns defined by the government, see: [5]. The total population of Thiruvananthapuram Metropolitan area is 1,679,754. The government published this total population but they didn't published the total area. That's why I needed to add the areas from the source i given (page 30). You can see the total population figure here.

If you add the census towns which comes under the Thiruvananthapuram metro region form the page 30, you will get the total area and the same population figure (1,679,754). So, basically, the census towns come under the metropolitan region is defined by the government. The total population of Thiruvananthapuram metro region is also published. The only thing remaining is the area and it can be found by just adding the area of census towns, which come under the metropolitan region. It also matches with the population figure. Thanks :) AG47 ^Talk 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lucien Cuénot

Please read Lucien Cuénot#A voice unheard? and then read my comments on the article's talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Marcuse

I have been dealing with an original research issue at the Herbert Marcuse article. The dispute is with a single person who has edited the article from multiple IP addresses: 2601:447:4101:41f9:595d:1efc:be67:64b5, 68.47.65.239, 2601:447:4101:41f9:1c38:f501:2e85:f7a7, 2601:447:4101:41f9:3c4d:17d2:e221:7a4a, 2601:447:4101:41f9:529:dcba:f533:b7fa, and 2601:447:4101:41f9:e469:5cbf:1851:1d18. The user has edit warred to restore flawed content he added to the article, for example here. The content includes the statement "He viewed the integration of Eros and Logos to be the liberation of society", added to the the lead, and a paragraph reading, "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive. Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification", added to the article body.

There are multiple problems with that content. Some of it, such as the part about "the liberation of society", in the lead, is vague but could perhaps be improved. Some of it, such as the part about how "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive", seems all but meaningless and is plainly useless to readers. Both those additions may involve original research, but the main original research problem is the sentence "Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it", which is cited to pages 125 and 126 Marcuse's book Eros and Civilization, but which simply does not give an accurate account of Marcuse's ideas. It is simply untrue that Plato argued that while "Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it" and nor does Marcuse say Plato did argue that (I have a copy of Eros and Civilization and can quote some of the text if anyone finds that helpful; one of the relevant pages of the book can be viewed here). The relevant passages of Eros and Civilization are quite dense, but it is clear nonetheless that the IP has put a totally false interpretation on them.

I have tried to explain repeatedly to the IP user that the source he cited does not support his claims about Marcuse's work and he has repeatedly ignored me. I have also tried to get him to understand WP:NOR, especially the point that even content cited to reliable sources can be original research if it presents a novel interpretation of those sources, but he has made contradictory statements about his understanding of the policy and does not seem to really understand it. I have already sought a third opinion over this issue, and it can be seen here; Reidgreg agreed that the content "does look like original research". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

But Marcuse's own words do not match this assumption. You can read Eros and Civilization here and a snippet of One Dimensional Man where he further discusses the benefits of Logos and why he felt it should reconcile with Eros here. My Eros and Civilization link also cites page 126, which is not listed in the source FreeKnowledgeCreator provided. This page notes more interesting views about Logos and how Eros became "archaic-mythical residue" as early as Plato.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Made some edits. You see, FreeKnowledgeCreator left a mistake I made when I made edits to the Eros and Civilization article and I still assumed it was "Plato's ideas." However, I took another look at page 126 when I noticed he didn't source it and noted I made a mistake. Now that I read the book page clearly, I was able to make the appropriate edits to both the Herbert Marcuse and Eros and Civilization article.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's quite a helpful comment because it amounts to an admission that some of the content you added, ("Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it"), was simply wrong and reflected your inability to read Eros and Civilization properly. I am glad that you have belatedly realized that you were totally mistaken. Unfortunately, your comment fails to address the issue that some of the other content you added to the Herbert Marcuse article, such as "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" and "In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification" is of no use to readers because it is incomprehensible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your addition on Eros and Civilization currently reads, 'In Eros and Civilization, Marcuse wrote that while Eros was constructive, its self-development became "archaic-mythical residue" as early as Plato. However, Logos was "commanding, mastering, an directing reason to man and nature are to be subjected" and would eventually absorb Eros"'. I accept that that is a good faith addition and on one level it is better than what you added before; unfortunately, however, my judgment remains that it really does nothing to explain Marcuse's ideas properly. It serves no purpose to flash phrases such as "archaic-mythical residue" at readers with no explanation of what they mean: the overwhelming majority of people are going to be totally mystified by them. In the absence of any reason to think that it is likely to help readers understand Marcuse, I still think your added paragraph should be removed. It also needs to be noted that you are still using inappropriate sources, such as this, in order to support your additions (such as the "Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" rubbish). Granted that the author of that document appears to be an academic and a scholar, it is still an unpublished and as such unacceptable source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Using maps to determine the actual location of a place

Hi again!

At Talk:St. Barnabas' Episcopal Church, Leeland an editor argued that using U.S. Census Bureau maps (such as this index map and its pages) to determine the location of a church by citing them with a reference to the postal address of the church (with the church's own location map) would be original research Synthesis. I argued that the map is merely being used to verify the actual physical location, rather than synthesizing new information.

Here are two previous discussions about this kind of scenario: Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#Regarding the address and location of this company which involved a company in Northern Virginia that had a Falls Church, Virginia postal address but was located way outside the city (this was posted at this same noticeboard: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations) and Talk:Centennial_Airport#The_way_to_settle_the_map_location_dispute:_US_census_bureau_maps which involved an airport miles away from the city designated by its postal address.

This however leads to a question: I wonder if it would be good to clarify how/when using maps would not be original research. One of the reasons why this is important for U.S. places is that the U.S. Postal Service addresses do not correspond with municipal boundaries, and many communities are unincorporated (not in any city). Many newspapers report locations based on the postal address city name rather than the actual location of a place. The OR page already has guidelines on mathematical calculations, so I think maps should be addressed too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't claim that my opinion is worth much, here, but this doesn't seem like a violation of the spirit of SYNTH to me. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of cast template box

Should the article; Desperate Measures (musical) include a template box for the separate casts or is prose enough? Please help form a consensus at Talk:Desperate Measures (musical)#RFC on inclusion of cast template box. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with original reasearch? Or WP:NPOV or WP:BLP or WP:RS, which are the other noticeboards you've posted this at? --Calton | Talk 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Skylab 4 human factors

Over at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors, I'm working on a draft to ultimately replace the Skylab mutiny article (see its talk page if you're bored). I'm pretty sure you'll find some original research in this draft, but I'm also pretty sure that a fair chunk of it is appropriately cited to secondary sources, and that at least some of the primary source utilization is reasonable (though, in some cases, it's not entirely clear to me if the particular application of a source is primary or secondary). I'm curious to figure out which sources and/or assertions cross the line to make further improvements. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Age of consent in Belgium

I'm not sure if this is quite the right board, but I couldn't find a board for verifiability questions.

At the article Minimum legal ages in Belgium, someone recently made an edit "updating" the age of consent in Belgium from 16 to 14. Has it really been lowered recently? I googled "'age of consent' belgium" and couldn't find a definitive answer. Given that this was a mobile edit by an ISP (2600:1700:62E0:6670:3C2C:C9B6:73B1:796B) I'm particularly leery of this edit. Has there been a real change in the law, or is this just willful vandalism? I'm stumped. Khemehekis (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

[6]. Unless the change in the law is so new that Belgium's government hasn't updated its online criminal code, age of consent is still 16. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that site, Someguy1221. It's cool that you can read Flemish! I also checked out your userpage and enjoyed reading your thoughts on vandalism. Khemehekis (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I should update that with some new thoughts - most of it is 10 years old. Also, literally while typing this response, I notice there is actually an update to the criminal code on its way to change that law: [7]. I didn't find any sources actually giving a date for when this would happen. Some speak as if the law has changed, but some from the same day or later say the law will change. But actually this is a Romeo and Juliet law, not a strict change to the age of consent. The newspapers mention that "some laws will change, others will be removed". If the government made an official announcement, I haven't found it. I'd say the sources I can find are too vague to serve as sources, so it wasn't vandalism or trolling, but that content should remain as is for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

[8] [9] [10] An agreement on the reform of Book 2 of the Penal Code was announced on 20 July by the Federal Government of Belgium's Council of Ministers, as planned in the 2014 coalition agreement (page 126), so "for now" there is a political majority consensus on the wording that will eventually be proposed to Parliament, after the summer recess. General age of consent would be harmonized to 16 years, reduced to 14 years if the age difference is less than 5 years and if there's no position of authority involved. But elections are nearby, 26 May 2019 at the latest: you're spot on in saying that it's WP:Too soon. Wakari07 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I checked out that WP:Too soon page, and it really needs to be updated. Check out this part: "A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." Khemehekis (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Funny that starring in Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys in 2013 apparently warranted Paris Jackson enough notability to create her an own article in 2013. But also the non-fact was added that she was a billionaire and that could also have had an influence. The last argument in the deletion discussion, anyway, is a bogus one: Do we really need to announce to a world full of kooks what school she goes to? Do we really need to post a photocopy of her birth certificate for heavens sake? That held simply no WP:Relevance since that would be a gross WP:BLP violation. Wikipedia is not a cops' child protection agency. Wakari07 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And today, the two members of the expert commission that was supposed to work on the reform took their leave [11] [12]. Did you ever hear about the process of decision-making in Belgium? Wakari07 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Two different names on two different maps but same feature

I have a question about how WP:NOR applies to maps. File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf comes from here and shows two seamounts named Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄. This publication has a differently styled bathymetric map of the same area, and this map shows two seamounts named Marovoiy and Nazimova. Based on a comparison of the two maps, Marovoiy = Aean̄-Kaņ and Wōd-Eņ Iōn̄ = Nazimova; would this conclusion be acceptable under WP:NOR? There is no source explicitly making the connection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger)

There is an original research issue at the article Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). Διοτιμα has edit warred to add the following text to the end of the article's lead: "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character". See for example here, where the misleading edit summary "expanded lead, as per WP:LEAD" was used. I believe that the added material is original research. It is not supported by a single cited source in the article. Although the added material is followed by a citation, the source used is page 8 of Julian Young's book Heidegger, Nazism, philosophy, and that page simply does not support the statement Διοτιμα added. It does note that Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics has been considered a fascist work (in much stronger language than that used by Διοτιμα, which minimizes the work's reputation as fascist) but nowhere does it state that this is because of its "primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein".

Διοτιμα may have made the addition in good faith, but the result is destructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Deep state in the United States

My edit here was reverted by BullRangifer on the claim that I was doing original research for these sentences:

What started as a conspiracy theory, was actually proven true.

The allegations made by Trump and others were without proof and as such considered to be a conspiracy theory. Then on September 5, 2018, an unusual anonymous op-ed was published in the New York Times with the title I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. The New York Times verified that this individual was a "senior official in the Trump administration" who was in the "upper echelon of [the] administration." This senior government official claimed that "many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda" and "steer the administration." Even the liberal website Vox found that "Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a 'deep state' of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will."

References

Here is the key part of the original source for the key Vox article:

Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. And now, one of them is taking to the pages of the New York Times to brag about it.

I acknowledge that I didn't cite anything for it being a conspiracy theory before, but this is cited elsewhere in the article and not in dispute. The question is, did I accurately express the view of the Vox article cited. According to K.e.coffman in talk, the Vox article was really being sarcastic, was just joking, and did not seriously mean what was said. The evidence of this, according to K.e.coffman is the use of scare quotes. I however believe the scare quotes are being used because it is not their term, they are using another person's meaning of the words "deep state." BullRangifer thinks the author is joking too because it uses the phrase "'Trump is right', ergo it can't be true. ". And even if it were true, BullRangifer argues, we should attribute it as an opinion. I don't think that is appropriate without another RS saying this RS is wrong (which has not yet been presented by BullRangifer). -Obsidi (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh. Scare quotes. Obviously Vox is having fun with it. If you think they are merely citing, and truly believe in the concept of a "deep state", you don't know Vox very well. No one on the left, where Vox lives, takes this deep state stuff seriously. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that is the case (that no one on the left takes this deep state stuff seriously), and I provided this vanity fair article on the talk page to demonstrate that (which is obviously also written from a left-wing perspective) and states very clearly that:

It’s a cosmic irony of Trump’s Washington that the same people Donald Trump has arbitrarily branded the “Deep State”—Never Trumpers, so-called Obama holdovers, establishment Republicans, and those who disagree with Trump’s agenda—have been forced underground, meeting clandestinely, communicating furtively. Ordinary staffers have been converted into reluctant “resistance” fighters. While it is business as usual in many corners of Foggy Bottom, the mood in some pockets of the State Department, the former official said, has “turned normal-functioning government into a scary thing for regular civil servants.” One source recounted stories of employees in select State Department bureaus decorating their cubicles with pro-Trump imagery, so as to avoid suspicion. If the Deep State didn’t exist before, Trump has brought it into being.

Notice the similar use of scare quotes (because they consider the term "arbitrarily branded" by Trump, and not their term), and it stated in a very clear and unambiguously serious tone that they believe it to be true. -Obsidi (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Notice those words: "If the Deep State didn’t exist before, Trump has brought it into being." So when an unruly child charges into the antique store and starts destroying things, and the adults in the room start hiding the most valuable objects to keep them from being destroyed, their actions are "deep state". Then the child calls the adults "bullies", and the adults call the child a "vandal". Got it. So are you going to side with the child or the adults? Who's right? How should this be parsed? Shall we honor the child's interpretation or the adults'?

We don't normally call this type of behavior "deep state". We call it "damage control", or insubordination and sabotage as patriotic activities. Whatever it is, it's not normally "deep state" and not enough to totally redirect the direction of a whole article. You could start a new article about it, but we actually have an article about it: I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration. This content and POV belongs there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

We follow the RS, including how they use the term. -Obsidi (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, my point is exactly that you don't seem to know how "they" (that is, the left-wing publications) use the word. It is used with derision. They are making fun of the people who believe in a "deep state". The "deep state" called thusly in square quotes has nothing to do with what QAnon calls "deep state". The one "deep state" is a fictional conspiracy that has permeated the entire government, indeed the world (plus it's probably another Jewish ("globalist") affair, funded by Soros, etc. etc.); the other "deep state" (or should I say ""deep state""?) is simply a joke used a. to point at the ridiculous fringey-ness of it and b. to indicate that there are a few people at work who want to keep their names a secret. Not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Look at Eugene Robinson's op-ed in the Washington Post, he is as far left as you can get, and he doesn't say the "deep state" isn't real, the term is used by Trump as "propaganda, intended to cast a sinister light" but he thinks the efforts of those people are a good thing not that they don't exist, saying With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss. and In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty. It’s called patriotism. Obviously if you define it as a giant conspiracy that "permeated the entire government" yet alone the rest of that (that some crazy QAnon people might believe), no one believes that. But that isn't the only way that term is used. Do they consider it a term mostly invented by Trump, yes, but it describes things that actually do exist (although are not sinister in their eyes). -Obsidi (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

But that's the actual original use of the term - the "deep state" in Egypt literally overthrew the government and took over the country. The writer of the "Resistance" op-ed appears to be a Trump appointee who doesn't share his exact policy agenda, but who presumably still answers to the president. This is problematic, but it's also not unprecedented - although Trump appears uniquely bad at keeping a lid on it. Nblund ^talk 22:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you define the term like in Egypt or Turkey terms (a shadow government who is running the country in all but name), then no, obvious that isn't the case here. But in my edit, I used the definition of "government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy" which is what ABC News defined the term as here. Obviously the term began in Turkey, but that doesn't mean that is the definition as understood in the United States. -Obsidi (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The network described by the author of the NYT piece and the network described by the "deep state" conspiracy theory bear virtually no resemblance to each other beyond the fact that they both consist of high ranking officials and both would oppose Trump (though the CS version would presumably also oppose every other president, as well). Note that the "deep state" had supposedly been in power long before Trump took office (since before 2014 in fact, with a different, though no less sinister shadowy cabal in place long before that, giving rise to such iconic characters as the Cigarette Smoking Man of X-Files fame and the Men in Black), and Trump ran for president in order to "heroically" fight against them (note the messianic tones: this is no coincidence), according to the conspiracy theory. The use of scare quotes in the Vox source, combined with the fact that it then immediately defines the term in a very different way than any other RS has ever defined it makes it quite clear that they are making the comparison for rhetorical effect: noting the irony of it. Expecting us to read this as an endorsement of the conspiracy theory is akin to pointing to a SNL sketch as proof that Trump and Putin are engaged in a romantic affair. Expecting us to then accept this single endorsement as proof is just ridiculous, even if this were an endorsement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• The Resistance op-ed proves those claims true only if you accept the absurd expansion of the definition to include basically anyone (including Trump appointees) who undermines the president in some way. "Deep State", much like "Fake news" is kind of meaningless at this point - thus, the scare quotes. Dara Lind's other mentions of this term make it pretty clear that he thinks Trump is misapplying it here. Nblund ^talk 22:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That article isn't by Dara Lind, it is also before the NYT's op-ed. So if the NYT's op-ed changed the factual situation (as is claimed), what previously was understood not to have proof of its existence could be changed. -Obsidi (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That's right: It's not by Dara Lind and it predates the NYT Op-ed. So now we've established that Vox authors have -on more than one occasion- used "deep state" in a way that bears no resemblance to the actual conspiracy theory. Given the tone of the two articles, that's likely because they think using it that way is a dig at Trump supporters who believe the conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You really think this part of that article is a "dig at Trump supporters"? Lake and Greenwald’s complaints share a common thread. Both agree that there’s a “permanent state” or “deep state” inside the US government, made up of its intelligence and security establishment, and that this government-within-a-government’s volleys against the Trump administration are a threat to democracy. Now obviously that isn't a conspiracy theory. But it merely comes down to how you define "deep state" then. My edit, that was reverted, defined it as "government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." Which is very close to Lake/Greenwald's definition of "deep state" (not used in the Turkey/Egypt sense of the term). -Obsidi (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You really think this part of that article is a "dig at Trump supporters"? Yup. I'm surprised you can't see it. Oh wait, no I'm not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

1. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
2. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
3. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
4. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
5. Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor trying to insert their own literary analysis into an article

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:John Grisham#RfC on 'recurring themes' section regarding whether or not a section of unsourced 'recurring themes in the author's work' (eg "Grisham's books show the writer's manifest dislike of mega law firms" with no references) falls foul of WP:NOR. Input there appreciated. Amisom (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status as described in published sources

In the article Warsaw Ghetto boy, an anonymous World War II photograph, a published source states that the image is public domain as well as NARA and the Institute of National Remembrance, which hold the photograph. Another user has recently edited the page to portray the public domain-ness of the image as equivalent to claims by Corbis Corporation and later Getty Images that the image is under copyright. The same user has used a news story about Corbis Corporation's archives being acquired by Getty Images to imply that this particular image was acquired by Getty at that time. Anyway, I would appreciate if someone could help sort it out. Catrìona (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Notion Club Papers - unsourced mention of "an odd coincidence"

I deleted[13] the mention of an "odd coincidence" between a mention by Tolkien in the story the article is about of a great storm in June 1987 and an actual storm, the Great Storm of 1987 in October 1987, with the edit summary "unsourced speculation". User:GwydionM reverted me with the edit summary "Undid foolish revision. The storm is a fact, and so is the mention of it." I pointed out to the editor on his talk page that he should know about our policy on original research - I'm not the only editor to have done so. I reverted Gwydion with the edit summary "It's policy that we would need at least one reliable source making the link, otherwise it's original research." His response was to reinstate the text saying "This can be seen as an odd coincidence" with separate sources for the existence of the mention in the story and the existence of the storm and the edit summary "If you insist on a source for the complete bloody obvious, OK". This seems to be classical original research. Note that our article coincidence clearly states "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively." To even mention this concidence seems WP:NPOV as well as OR, to call it an odd one would require good sourcing and probably attribution. Note that I haven't reverted, I'm still at 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious SYNTH. I'd leave it out even if there was a source making the link because it is a rather weak coincidence (not even the right month). Zero^talk 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Guide to Middle Earth, Colin Duriez writes, "Interestingly, there was a great storm - a hurricane - in Britain that Autumn which had a devastating impact!"[14] One could mention that Duriez made that connection but it is obvious OR for editors to make the connection. TFD (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Tolkien (as editor of Sauron Defeated) makes an explicit reference to the (real) storm. I don't have the page number handy, I'm afraid, but would this be an adequate source? Tevildo (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)