Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 45

Race and IQ: "no evidence" for genetic component?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been significant discussion on the article Race and Intelligence about the WP:VERIFIABILITY of the following statement:

The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.

The sentence has five cited sources, none of which (in my opinion) in fact support this claim. There is a special notice on this article against misrepresenting sources, so this seems particularly important to get right. The same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [1], Heritability of IQ (twice) [2][3], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added here [4] and then moved to the new article [5]). Proposed remedies include simply removing the sentence in question, or adding a qualifier (such as no direct evidence for a genetic component, or no evidence for a significant genetic component).

So could we please determine whether the sources support the statement in question, or does it constitute WP:OR? Most of the talk page discussion has focused on one of the sources in particular, Hunt's Human Intelligence. The relevant section is pages 432-447, and a preview is available online[6]. The other sources are Mackintosh, Nisbett, Kaplan, and Ceci & Williams.

To avoid making this post any longer, I will include highlighted excerpts from the sources in a separate follow-up response. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm popping in here to mention the sixth reference (which the OP apparently overlooked) –– Panofsky et al. –– so that it will appear in the list of sources below: Generalrelative (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Probably the most relevant excerpt from Hunt's Human Intelligence is the quote included in the article citation, from p. 447:

It is worth remembering that no genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now.

Other excerpts from Hunt, including those cited on the talk page:

• "Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement [that the differences are 100% environmental] has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say, 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences. The real debate is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one." (p. 434-435)
• "In general, I find their arguments not so much wrong as vastly overstated. But overstatement does not mean that there is no point to them." (p. 434)
• "It could be that there are genetic constraints that make inequality of cognition across groups inevitable. This hypothesis can never be ruled out, for doing so would require proving the null hypothesis and, as any good statistics instructor will tell you, that is a logical impossibility." (p. 447)
• "Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place." (p. 436) Stonkaments (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mackintosh says: "In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin."

Kaplan says: "As there remains no way to gather evidence that would permit the direct refutation of the environmental hypotheses, and no direct evidence for the hereditarian position, it remains the case, I argue, that the hereditarian position is unsupported by current evidence."

Nisbett and Cici/Williams don't make any assertions about the existence or lack evidence at all, from what I can see, though Cici/Williams do note that "plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded" by the 100% environmental hypothesis.

All told, every source that makes any claims about the current state of evidence reference some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence for a genetic component. Stonkaments (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous RfC on this topic (although not these sources) can be found here: [7]. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) A crucial piece of context that is left out of Stonkaments posting here is that this issue was the subject of an RfC last year (where around 50 editors weighed in over the course of several weeks): [8] The finding there was: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory. Given this, I'm not sure that we need to be quibbling over this statement.

That said, there are a whole host of problems with the recent critiques of the status quo article leveled by Stonkaments and others on Talk: Race and intelligence. A number of us have noted that they seem to misunderstand the distinction between reporting data and presenting opinions, something which sources like Hunt are typically careful to do, but which can present difficulties for lay readers. These difficulties are only exacerbated when the issue is contentious –– as the issue of race and intelligence clearly is. For that reason, if intervention from the wider community can illuminate these sticking points, I warmly welcome it.

One other oversight which I should note at the outset: the statement in question is actually cited by six sources, at least at Race and intelligence. The most recently added is Panofsky et al., which states: [T]he claims that genetics defines racial groups and makes them different, that IQ and cultural differences among racial groups are caused by genes, and that racial inequalities within and between nations are the inevitable outcome of long evolutionary processes are neither new nor supported by science (either old or new). Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I also want to be clear that I am not in any way arguing that intelligence is mostly heritable, or that environment is not the primary factor. I'm also not arguing that there is definitively a genetic component; I am agnostic on that matter. My argument is simply that the claim "no evidence for a genetic component" misrepresents both the cited sources and the scientific consensus. Stonkaments (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be precise. The sentence you're challenging doesn't say that there's no genetic component behind individual IQ differences; it says "there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." pburka (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, here is the context in which the statement in question appears at Heritability of IQ: Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. Generalrelative (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The OP is misstating the issue, which is not whether there's a genetic component in intelligence which contributes to individual variation, but rather whether some races are genetically superior or inferior to others in intelligence. The OP is trying to relitigate the precise issue that was already decided in the RfC on race and intelligence last year at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard.

The OP has been bludgeoning the Race and intelligence talk page with one attempt after another to undermine the consensus reached at that RfC. Last month the OP argued for adding a section claiming that Ashkenazi Jews have high average IQ for genetic reasons. This is what the OP wrote: Their high average IQ is well-documented, and the argument that this developed due to genetic selection is compelling and highly relevant to the article, and has been covered by numerous reliable sources. The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous.

A recent source that was brought up by several editors on the Race and intelligence talk-page is an article in American Journal of Physical Anthropology that sharply criticizes the methods used by racialist hereditarians, comments that there's no valid evidence to support claims of genetic differences in intelligence between races, and adds that if there were such differences, "It is also important to note that the direction of the mean difference could favor Africans or Europeans with equal likelihood." NightHeron (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside: The OP's claim to be "agnostic" on racialist hereditarian theories is disingenuous. I do not think so. Agnostics are often very intolerant of other viewpoints. They typically demand that everything must be kept open, and even when the evidence very clearly points in one direction, they will refuse to accept that because their agnosticism is dogmatic and based on a misunderstanding of how science works: it is Mr. Spock's "scientists must be unbiased" cliché. Actually, science uses specific methods to neutralize the scientists' biases, such as double-blinding.

So, please do not get distracted by their "agnostic" self-description, it is fully compatible with what is happening here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that interesting perspective on agnosticism, which I hadn't thought of. I was interpreting the word simply in the sense of the definition (from dictionary.com): a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic. The OP is clearly not that. NightHeron (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Holds neither of two opposing positions, and, in the case of a dogmatic agnostic, is strictly opposed to both opposing positions. So, when an article says "there is no evidence", the dogmatic agnostic will want to delete or mitigate that sentence regardless of whether there is really no evidence.

I have encountered those stubborn postmodern fence-sitters in discussions about lots of pseudosciences. Maybe it is often just a ruse, but there is no point in insisting it is. Concentrating on the actual reasoning given is more constructive than accusations of insincerity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out a contradiction between two statements of the OP -- first, that they're "agnostic" (a word that in this context could be interpreted as meaning neutral or unbiased); second, that "the argument that this [high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews] developed due to genetic selection is compelling". A common tactic of civil POV-pushers is to deny having any POV at all on the subject. NightHeron (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. On some subjects experienced scholars disagree reliably. The sources are reliable and need to be quoted so that Wikipedia canvasses a wide range of views. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC).

Not when it is unambiguously WP:fringe, as this is. Please let's not spend any more time going round this roundabout [gyratory, for US readers]. What next? Flat earth? The president is a lizard man from Arcturus in disguise? Climate change is not caused by humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't look fringe to me. They are well-cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC).

The sources are fine. The issue is how to interpret them. The OP is arguing that they do not in fact support the statement that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups, whereas at least 5 others (including myself) have argued that they do. Note that the OP's quotation gallery is incomplete –– and I would argue tendentious. I'm not super jazzed about the prospect of another deep exegetical dive into this literature, but will dive in nonetheless if necessary, and this will mean more quotes.

The recent conversation on the article talk page has gone around and around ad nauseam. Despite being asked to drop the stick when both the local consensus and the RfC clearly disagrees with them, the OP has instead taken the case here. For this reason, I sympathize with John Maynard Friedman's frustration. This type of WP:IDHT issue is an annoying time sink for those of us who work to keep articles related to the race and intelligence RfC in accord with its findings. Generalrelative (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's important for everyone to understand that the sources being discussed here don't represent a complete sampling of viewpoints about this topic. More recent secondary sources such as Cognitive Capitalism (2018) In the Know (2020) state in much more unambiguous terms that there is evidence for a genetic component to group differences in average IQ scores. But these sources, and other recent sources that argue for a genetic contribution, are being excluded from the article because they're considered incompatible with the outcome of the RFC. (This was discussed here.) The publisher of the two books I mentioned, Cambridge University Press, has been established as a reliable source with respect to this topic in an earlier discussion at RSN.

So as I said, the question is not whether "there is no evidence for a genetic component" represents an accurate summary of all the views presented in reliable secondary sources, because more recent secondary sources that strongly disagree with the statement are being excluded for that reason. The question is whether, when all sources that strongly disagree with the statement are excluded, the remaining sources adequately support the statement.

Everyone should bear this in mind when judging whether this selective sampling of sources, which are mostly sources from 8+ years ago, are adequate to support statements about the "current scientific consensus". The statement about current scientific consensus appears to be another statement that's based on the RFC rather than on sources, because when editors have requested a source for this statement, the response has been to cite the RFC. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the argument in both sources is that environment can effect IQ results not that "race" plays a role. For example, In the Know says that adoption can increase IQ scores. TFD (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a section of Cognitive Capitalism titled "Evolution and Genes", that presents evidence for a genetic contribution to differences in average IQ scores across various regions of the world. This book states (p. 288), "There is a huge body of indirect evidence that genes contribute to international intelligence differences."

The relevant part of In The Know is chapter 28. One section of the chapter is titled, "Five sources of evidence about the hereditarian hypothesis", in which Warne argues that these five lines of evidence all support the view that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component. This section of the chapter concludes (p. 258), "All five types of evidence reviewed in this section indicate that genetic differences across racial or ethnic groups contribute to at least some of the differences in average IQ across groups. [...] When combined into one whole body of research, the evidence for the hereditarian hypothesis is much stronger than the evidence favoring the environmentalist viewpoint."

As I said, both of these sources are being excluded from the article because they contradict the result of the RFC. However, Warne's book also is the most up-to-date secondary source overviewing this topic, published less than six months ago. Gardenofaleph (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph, Rindermann was quite extensively discussed in the RFC. The mere fact that he publishes a new book or paper periodically doesn't indicate that his views have gained wider acceptance. MrOllie (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph's claims about the state of the scientific consensus are not credible. Russel Warne, the author of In the Know is a psychologist at Utah Valley University, so hardly a leading light in the discipline. Rindermann has been discussed at length, as MrOllie mentioned.

Here is a 2020 statement by a group of prominent scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina, which discusses the question of why we see so few actual geneticists publishing research on the topic of race and IQ: [9] It is worth quoting at length: [W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. So we shouldn't be swayed by the quantity of research published in second-rate journals with strong institutional ties to racial hereditarianism. We should look instead at the quality of the research and whom among the scientific mainstream it persuades. Which brings me to...

In the discussion which Gardenofaleph linked to above, when they expressed skepticism about the RfC's accuracy about the scientific consensus, I suggested that they run a 20-year search of "race and intelligence" at Nature and Science. When one does that, one finds zero studies presenting evidence for the idea that genes contribute to observed group-level differences in average IQ stores. But one does find plenty that contradicts the hereditarian view of race and intelligence, notably a 2017 editorial in Nature –– coordinated to comment upon a contemporaneously published meta-analysis on the genetics of intelligence –– which states clearly that the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races. Indeed, Gardenofaleph felt the need to debate me at length on whether this editorial really represented the views of the Nature editorial board in this thread until the tangent became so disruptive that I was driven to open this RfC at RS/N where they continued to debate the issue.

So yes, the statement by Cornell professors Stephen Ceci & Wendy Williams that There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences is from 2009, but everything that has come out in Nature and Science since then only confirms their view. I could go on and on with this, but I see that my post is now quite long. If necessary I will be happy to provide more. It would be nice to bring this chapter of Wiki-drama to a close. Generalrelative (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Academic consensus does not mean that there is 100% agreement but that a position is so widely accepted that it will be treated as true. Spectrum of fringe theories refers to "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." Most of these formulations are ignored in mainstream scholarship. Sometimes experts will review their research and explain why it is flawed. In rare cases, the new formulation will become accepted or at least be considered a valid alternative view. Gavin Evans wrote in The Guardian, "One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance." (2 March 2018)[10] That summarizes what weight race science currently has. TFD (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, it may well become pseudoscience when what consistently failed is being repeated, or if supporting racialism with flawed conclusions based on selective data while disregarding conflicting evidence. But that's not the topic here, more about the consensus that no plausible group IQ/genetic relationship was discovered and that there's more individual variability; that when comparing groups there's much more evidence that environmental factors, population health and test setting affect results. —PaleoNeonate – 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: On these articles, the current status of the hereditarian hypothesis (as per the result of last year's RFC) is that sources that support this hypothesis are not admissible, period. This was mentioned here: "The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year." So for example, on the Nations and IQ article, 100% of the sources arguing for this perspective were removed from 30 November to 6 December last year. Is this approach, of all sources that support the perspective being inadmissible, consistent with how alternative theoretical formulations are supposed to be presented at Wikipedia? Gardenofaleph (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the outcome was that it was a fringe theory, hence sources promoting the theory should not be used. WP:FRINGE says that writing about fringe theories should use "independent reliable sources." So nothing has changed. Although the new sources were published by the Cambridge University Press, it still doesn't take them out of the realm of fringe. To do that, we would need to show that it has gained some degree of acceptance in the body of academic literature. TFD (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I find that editors are muddying the waters somewhat by moving away from the very specific claim being challenged. For example, neither whether some races are genetically superior or inferior to others in intelligence, nor when comparing groups there's much more evidence that environmental factors...affect results, is an accurate rephrasing of the precise statement being challenged. I agree that there is much more evidence for environmental factors, but that is not what is being argued. Same for the RfC on this topic; it addressed a related but by no means identical claim. As a reminder, the specific claim in question is:

The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. (emphasis added)

The positive assertion of "no evidence" is the key point of contention, and I haven't seen a credible argument that this assertion is supported by any of the cited sources, much less that it represents the scientific consensus. As I have shown, all of the cited sources seem to indicate there is some level of indirect or circumstantial evidence suggestive of a genetic component to the racial IQ gap. And as Gardenofaleph points out, that is without even considering the sources that more forcefully argue the point that have been excluded as fringe. (I haven't looked at the latest source from Generalrelative, though at first glance it does not appear reliable for our purposes here, as it is looking at how ideas are used and abused online, not a rigorous investigation of the science behind those ideas).

There has been much back-and-forth about editors' views on the current scientific consensus, but very little in the way of concrete support from the cited sources. WP:VNT reminds us that even if you believe strongly that a statement is true, it also needs to meet WP:VERIFIABILITY. Stonkaments (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A lot of us are getting very tired of having to go through the same arguments again and again. It's a time sink that keeps us from working on other matters that need editors' attention. The claim that the RfC was based on editors' personal opinions rather than the sources is a blatant falsehood. Many sources were given. Roughly 50 editors participated in the RfC discussion over a period of five weeks. The RfC was sustained on appeal to AN. After the RfC some of us extensively edited the Race and intelligence article to remove claims in wikivoice that lent credence to racial hereditarian views, add reliable sourcing, and bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. While we did this, we had to confront extensive objections by the same editors who had the minority position in the RfC discussion and who repeated the same arguments. A small number of editors are now bludgeoning again, raising the same objections that have already been debated at length several times within the last year. The basic issue is that this small group of editors refuses to accept (1) the consensus of mainstream scientists who reject the claims of the racial hereditarians, and (2) the consensus of Wikipedia editors that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. This WP:SEALIONing conduct has become disruptive. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe worth adding, it's important not to confuse IQ results with potent intelligence and not to confuse IQ result averages of a group with group genetics. There is evidence that IQ scores differ between groups, but no plausible evidence that it's due to genetics (and much observed evidence of the contrary). It also doesn't mean that genetics don't play a role in intelligence, as can be seen when comparing different animal species (in this case all closely related homo sapiens) or when a genetic syndrome is involved. Since it's not been linked, although it's an essay, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity for more context. —PaleoNeonate – 01:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Late to the show, and the complex arguments above are mostly above my pay grade, but just to point out that "the current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups" may well be true even if that's wrong on the merits because it's a politically fraught subject, and scientists are people. They like their jobs. Remember, we're not saying that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups. We're saying that that is the current scientific consensus. Different thing! I'd be very surprised it it wasn't the current scientific consensus, if for no other reason than who wants a bunch of undergrads picketing your office. I'm being cynical but accurate based on my understanding of how the world works. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A 2016 survey[11] found: "Around 90% of experts believed that genes had at least some influence on cross-national differences in cognitive ability." This is consistent with earlier surveys[12][13]. Of course these surveys–and at least one of the authors–have been disputed as fringe, but I have yet to see any survey that shows the opposite. And per WP:VERIFIABILITY, we need sources to support any claims regarding the scientific consensus. Stonkaments (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For the seven-hundredth time, per Cornell professors Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams: There is an emerging consensus about racial and gender equality in genetic determinants of intelligence; most researchers, including ourselves, agree that genes do not explain between-group differences. That is far from our only source to confirm the existence of this consensus, but it is an especially clear one. Continuing to forget that this source exists, or pretend that it doesn't say what it says, or insist that somehow this statement published in Nature isn't really a reliable source, should be treated as transparent WP:SEALIONing. Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Those fringe "surveys" were repeatedly cited by the minority of editors who opposed the RfC -- both during the RfC and during talk-page discussions afterwards. Those "surveys" had multiple flaws, such as very low response rate and sample bias (since they were circulated primarily using organizations/publications that promote racial hereditarianism). And of course the lead author of the "surveys", Heiner Rindermann, is a leading advocate of that POV. All this has been discussed before, more than once. NightHeron (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that ~80% of the respondents were psychologists—not a good source for a question about genetics. Self-selection bias in responding to the survey also makes it a bad measurement of community consensus (given the low response rate). —Wingedserif (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and self-selection is a big issue when, as in this case, the person distributing the survey is well known to have a strong POV on the subject of the survey. It stands to reason that someone with a high opinion of the work of Rindermann would be much more likely to go to the trouble of completing the survey than someone who doesn't think much of Rindermann's writings and doesn't trust his motives in conducting the survey. NightHeron (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed. I will also note that both of these issues (i.e. the validity of Rindermann's surveys, Herostratus's take on how the world works) are actually discussed quite comprehensively in the recent article "The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence": [14] As discussed in this source, the latest version of Rindermann's survey included a total of four actual geneticists. Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, any survey is likely to have representation issues, but I don't think that makes them worthless. The point remains, all of the survey evidence points in one direction, while the WP:BURDEN of proof lies on those making the opposite claim. Stonkaments (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what makes them worthless. Statistics 101: Sampling error. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman is of course entirely correct here. For more context, it may be worth quoting "The Mythical Taboo" article at length:

Rindermann et al. (2016, 2017, 2020) recently attempted to update Snyderman and Rothman’s survey, and their attempt is a good illustration of how hereditarians construct an appearance of widespread support. Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle surveyed only authors who had published papers in five select journals and the membership of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3). As of this writing, they have published three papers out of these data; very few responses are reported in each paper: 71 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2016, p. 3), 75 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2017, p. 244), and 72 respondents (Rindermann et al., 2020, p. 15) meaning the response rate in each paper hovered around 5%. To put these results in perspective, Rindermann, Becker, and Coyle report that only about 20 more people responded to their reported questions than Gottfredson managed for the Mainstream Statement despite asking 10 times the number of people. Again, the data provided by hereditarians of expert support are better evidence that mainstream psychologists would prefer to ignore their agenda.

Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

National and racial are not the same things. "Korea, Finland and Canada are among the highest-performing countries in PISA 2009, with averages of 539, 536 and 524 points, respectively. At 494 score points on the reading scale, the United Kingdom performed around the OECD average in PISA 2009, similarly to the United States." ("How Your School Compares Internationally," p. 2. OECD 2012) So maybe some of the smartest people in the U.S. and UK emigrated to Canada. While that would indicate a genetic reason for Canada exceeding the U.S. and UK, it wouldn't be a racial difference. TFD (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Addressing the issue of WP:Verifiability that you raised in your original post here, my understanding of the consensus here is as follows:

You argued that the wording "no evidence for a genetic component" is not supported by its sources, because all of its sources reference some level of indirect evidence. But I think the consensus in this discussion is that this wording is required by the outcome of the RFC whether this sentence misrepresents its sources or not, so it can't be changed unless the RFC decision is overturned. Nobody has stated outright that it's irrelevant whether the sentence misrepresents its sources, but when you (and other past editors) have repeatedly raised objections to the sentence based on WP:Verifiability, and have been repeatedly told in response to stop trying to go against the consensus of the RFC, I think this is the most reasonable interpretation.

I agree with the concerns about WP:Verifiability that you raised in your original post, but I also think it's clear that they can't be addressed in this discussion, so you aren't going to resolve anything by continuing to make the same objection here. Upholding the verifiability policy in this case will require a different approach. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ifat/Adal Leaders

Original research on articles related to the Ifat/Adal pages are being supported by User:Ayaltimo and User:Ragnimo for ex; [15] [16] [17] [18]. The users are restoring the leaders/kingdoms pages with the term "Somali" as their identity however alittle research into these dynasties reveal the contrary; Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate both ruled by the Walashma dynasty were of Ethiopian origin [19]] [20] and run by Ethiopian Semitic speakers [21] see p.14 footnote. [22]. One of the users has even gone to the length of blanking reliable sources that state Ethiopian Semites were affiliated with the Adal kingdoms army by claiming its original research. [23] Magherbin (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost, neither Britannica and brillonline are reliable. They have simply copied versions of an older less referenced revision on the encyclopedia. The Cambridge History of Africa offers many suggestions which I will get onto.

Ifat Sultanate is regarded by the majority of contemporary sources as a Somali Sultanate headquartered in Zeila.

According to Yohannes K. Mekonnen who is a major modern Ethiopian historian had this to say in his book. Ethiopia The Land, Its People, History, and Culture page 43.

The Ifat Sultanate was a medieval Somali Muslim Sultanate in the Horn of Africa. Led by the Walashma dynasty, it was centered in Zeila. The kingdom ruled over parts of what is now eastern Ethiopia, Djibouti, and northern Somalia.

Zeila was the capital and center of Ifat Sultanate. I'll post major sources.

Africa Quarterly - Volum 43 page 108 states:

However, it was not until the 13th century and after it got Islamised that the Somalis led by Yemeni immigrants founded a state which they called Ifat with its principal centre in Zeila.

History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:

Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by...

Ifat Sultanate was never based in Shewa/Shoa plateau. It was originally based in the northern Somali city of Zeila.

The Somali Boundary: Dispute and Functional Evolution page 8 states:

At that time the Islamic Sultan of Ifat, based at Zeila, turned sporadic fighting with the " Abyssinian infidels " into a full-scale religious war.

Shewa at that time was under the Shewa Sultanate and in 1285, Sultan Umar Walashma conquered Shewa to consolidate the Sultanate of Ifat, which was based out of Zeila, ruled by the Walashma Dynasty.

Ethiopia: The Land, Its People, History and Culture - Page 44 states:

History Ifat first emerged in the 13th century when its sultan, Umar Walashma (or his son Ali, according to another source), is recorded as having conquered the Sultanate of Shewa in 1285.

Now let us assess the Cambridge history of Africa. Al Umari visited vast regions of Ethiopia during Ifat height which extended its territory deep into Shewa plateau when Ifat conquered the area so of course, he's going to mention different groups including Ethio-Semitic speakers.

But according to the Cambridge History of Africa, the same volume you were using states Zeila was predominantly inhabited by ethnic Somalis and the prominent speakers of the vast lowland and shores where Zeila is suited were eastern Cushitic speakers (Somali).

The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 139 states:

But there is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and Al-Dimashqi, another thirteen-century Arab writer, gives the city name its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali.

The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 page 147 states:

This linguistic factor may have provided another dimension for the basic cleavage between the sedentary Muslim communities in the Ethiopian interior and the nomadic peoples of the vast lowlands between the plateau and the coast, who were predominantly speakers of Eastern Cushitic. The rulers are known as the Walashma Dynasty headquartered in the Somali city of Zeila who ruled both Ifat Sultanate and Adal Sultanate and their ancestor was called Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn also known as (Aw barkhadle) in Somali. The Walashma Dynasty claimed Aw Barkhadle was his fifth ancestor.

Divine Fertility The Continuity in Transformation of an Ideology of Sacred Kinship in Northeast Africa page 16 states:

As noted previously, not only is Saint Aw-Barkhadle credited with having spread Islam in this region; the Walashma dynasty is also genealogically linked with Saint Aw-Barkhadle, whom they claim to be the fifth ancestor in their lineage.

The History of Islam in Africa - Page 242 states

As Aw Barkhadle, the ancestor of the founder of the Walashma dynasty, represents "the spiritual legacy of the Islamic state of Yifat/Adal.

Aw barkhadle is regarded as a native Somali saint.

The Writing of the Somali Language page 10 states:

The idea of finding a script first occurred to a certain sheikh, Yusuf Al Kawneyny, better known as Aw Barkhadle. He was a native, who lived in about 1,000 years ago and is buried now in a ruined town named after him.

Macrocultures, Migration, and Somali Malls page 53 states:

They were able to make a living by exacting tolls from new fathers and bridegrooms considered blood payments (diya) for a Yebir who was killed in a contest of magic with a Somali Sheikh (a religious leader) named Aw Barkhadle.

Aw Barkhadle also invented the Wadaad writing script which is the traditional Somali adaptation of written Arabic, as well as the Arabic script as historically used to transcribe the Somali language. This proves his ethnicity. [24]

The founders of the dynasty of Walasma were native to the area they controlled. Umar Walasma, the first to reign, according to the Harari historian, Sheikh Abibakr Ba-Alawi Ashanbali, was a descendent of Sheikh Yusuf Al-Kowneyn. [25]

All these sources I published are reliable and modern. I have way more that I didn't share. The only one who is conducting original research is you. You're literally disputing with many users on those pages based on one source theory using words like "may", "maybe" and "possibly". Ayaltimo (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How is "Yohannes K. Mekonnen" a major historian when all he did was copy and paste wikipedia articles in his self published book. What you quoted in his book is exactly whats on the Ifat Sultanate article. An actual Ethiopian historian was Taddesse Tamrat and he states on p.120 "Gragn himself and most of his commanders were clearly part of the Semitic-speaking Wâlasma elite who had established their hegemony in the Harar plateau since the second half of the 14th c. when a radical group of the Wâlasma leadership in Ifat moved there.14 This group, the Argobba, the Adâré and probably also some sections of the Selji were the nucleus of the Wâlasma state of Adal". [26] or from Persée p. 182 "This is the region formerly known as Yifat. It is the plateau to the south of the river Borkena, to the south of the river Kessem, and bordered by Menz on the west. The Argobba here are found in Northern Shoa and Southern Wollo. The people are generally referred to as Argobba. However, there is a clan called Doba Shagura among them, and the Doba are those who established the Walasma dynasty." [27]. The second source you posted which is very unreliable states Yemenis founded the state with Somalis yet you're pushing for the claim that Somalis alone founded and ran the state. No text was provided to claim any of the Sultans were Somalis either. Do not combine sources to reach a conclusion not stated by the source. Magherbin (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't addressed anything and ignored most of my sources. The second source is not unreliable you misunderstood the context. The Walashma Dynasty ancestrally claimed Arabs just like every other Somali clan. I'll quote the Cambridge History of Africa again this time but with a larger context.

There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century, the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'. Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin.

The Walashma dynasty literally claimed Arab ancestor, not "Ethio-Semitic" nor Argobba.

Area Handbook for Somalia Volume 550 page 18 by Irving Kaplan

By the early fifteenth century the Muslim empire of Adal, which had its capital in Zeila and some of its territory in what is present-day eastern Ethiopia, was ready to do battle over territory and religion with expanding Christian Abyssinia. Adal was part of the state Ifat, whose ruling dynasty claimed Arab ancestry, however, mixed they have been with local peoples.

This is a primary source from Al-Maqrizi a notable Egyptian historian and traveler had this to say.

Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527 - Page 124

According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.

Further backup for the primary source proving the ruler's origin. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62

Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.

Why does it say Somali instead of Somali-Arab you say? It's a very simple answer. If Arabs come to Somalia and integrate they are Somali, it is like saying that for example, that Ahmed Aboutaleb is a Morrocan, but he is Dutch-Moroccan, but we all say he is Dutch, for though he is integrated into the Dutch culture. So what are your current critics?

In fact, if you look up the Gobroon dynasty of Geledi Sultanate. The nobles within the Geledi claim descent from Omar al-Din. He had 3 other brothers, Fakhr and with 2 others of whom their names are given differently as Shams, Umudi, Alahi and Ahmed. Together they were known as Afarta Timid, 'the 4 who came', indicating their origins from Arabia. Claims of descent from Arabia were mainly for legitimacy reasons. The same for the Garen dynasty of Ajuran Sultanate. The Ajuran are said to be descendants of Alama who in turn is a son of Bal'ad who traces descent from Arab immigrant Harmalle Samaale, who traces his descent through Aqeel ibn Abi Talib. [28] Does that mean we should include every Somali kingdom as (Somali-Arab state) just because each dynasty claimed to have an "Arab" origin?

I.M Lewis and other well-known historians viewed them as either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis [29]. These aren't "Arab lineages"-> they're Somali ones which in turn like all Somali genealogies claim to have Arab origins.

By the way, both Tadesse Tamrat and Alklilu Asfaw are not reliable. These two outdated historians are based on the work of Braukamper who himself did not believe they were Argobba. Ulrich Braukamper who is cited by this source for example merely entertains the idea that the Walashma were possibly Argobbas [30] in a book of his but then shortly after does not hold to this view and uses the usual view [31] that’s been shared on Wikipedia about their Qurayshi & Hashemite genealogical origins suggesting that they were Arabians. He does not then tie this dynasty to the Argobba. It was simply a claim with no string of evidence.

To claim this dynasty was anything but Somali after providing an endless list of sources by tying them to such figures is practically disingenuous. Ayaltimo (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

First, can someone reformat the above text? It seems as if people are shouting at each other, & I find it hard to read. Second, I'm surprised various authorities are being dismissed so quickly as "unreliable" or "outdated". For example, Taddesse Tamrat received his graduate education in the UK from a respectable institution; I'd be more than a little reluctant to dismiss his work so quickly, despite that he wrote over 50 years ago. (Historical research does not advance that quickly to render work from the 60s necessarily outdated.) Last, the nationality of Imam Ahmad al-Ghazi is very much disputed: the Futuh, one of our chief sources for the period, does not provide that information. (IMHO, nationality mattered little to the author, who was content to describe the Imam as a devout Muslim.) In summary, I suggest both parties to dial down the emotion & provide more reasoning & less tossing of quotations at each other. -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment although the part about Ghazi would be appreciated in the ongoing discussion [32]. These sultanates did not focus mainly on ethnic affiliation per say but they were definitely not under "Somali" leadership based on the references I provided. If you take a look at the Ifat Sultanate article under the people section [33], it claims Umari a medieval Arab historian claimed "Ifat spoke Somali", however if you check these sources thats clearly not the case. I read over these sources and corrected them but was instead reverted back to the version which is original research. The text credited to Yohannes (a WP:MAF source) is not even stated by him which falsely reads; "The majority of scholars agree the population of the leading principality of Ifat Sultanate were no doubt the Somalis who were headquartered in Zeila". [34]. Magherbin (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

llywrch The problem with Taddesse Tamrat is he's quoting the Argobba theory by Ulrich Braukamper who himself does not support the idea the Walashma were Argobbas. He mostly leaned to the mainstream view that they were Arabians that migrated to Somalia.

I'd like to quote an older user who had an extensive knowledge and disproven these sources previously using mainstream views which holds more evidence.

---

"A source Braukamper often cites on the history of the Walashma (Enrico Cerulli) also contradicts the statement that this group was Argobba. Enrico Cerulli’s views on them if I recall were not honestly removed from that of Braukamper and he even acquired a historical genealogy (it’s the one mentioned here and shared here by another author who cites Cerulli as his source) that tied them to this Somali saintly figure as their ancestor, a figure who has nothing to do with Argobbas and ultimately claims an Arabian genealogy.

And then there’s finally I.M Lewis, and his views on the Walashma were what the following text often shared on Wikipedia alluded to:

"According to I.M. Lewis, the polity was governed by local dynasties consisting of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis, who also ruled over the similarly-established Sultanate of Mogadishu in the Benadir region to the south. Adal's history from this founding period forth would be characterized by a succession of battles with neighbouring Abyssinia."- source for what's in this text

Which is that this dynasty based on their genealogical ties to Somali-Arab genealogies like that of the Darod’s Aqeeli based one were either Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis of some sort or just plain Arabs. But before Zekenyan begins to accuse me of "original research"; I'm merely sharing why this author would tie them to Somalis, I do not care if this dynasty was Arab, English, Japanese or Somali but am I merely sharing what authors like Lewis believed them to mostly be.

This document Zekenyan's shared is not a reliable source to be citing on wikipedia. The document as a whole is not bad at all but that one statement it makes which is relevant to this page is directly contradicted by the authors of over 3 works that it utilizes as historical sources who all hold the more accepted view that this group was somehow Arab and in the case of Lewis and seemingly Cerulli associate them more with Somalis than with Argobbas. The only author I recall in its sources who ever claimed that they were Argobbas was perhaps Professor Tadesse Tamrat who was seemingly basing this on Braukamper’s musings so that’s not reliable."

---

Magherbin is using the same sources and arguments as Zekenyan who has been disproven by the previous users. Magherbin is just another new nationalist user disputing with multiple users on those pages but that's beside the point. Here is where Magherbin gets everything wrong. He believes the Walashma Dynasty began in Shewa but according to both Al-Maqrizi and the Walashma's own chronicle, the Walashma had a Quraysh lineage (like many other Somali clans). Maqrizi also indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region and from there later moved into the hinterland to occupy Ifat. [35] "Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.

Zeila is a Somali city located in modern-day Somaliland. The mainstream view is the Walashma Dynasty were Somalis with an Arabian ancestry.

This source is from the Encylopedia of Africa because this is a mainstream accepted view. Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62

Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled." In due time these converts [Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and Dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera.

Ayaltimo (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is this "older user"? Do you mean a Wikipedian? I helped create & write many of these Wikipedia articles, worked with several of the early members of WikiProject Ethiopia, & don't recognize this quotation. (IIRC, the modern ethnicity of these peoples of the Horn was not extensively discussed while I was active in the WikiProject.)

And rather than quoting assertions based on authorities, I'd rather see explanations of the reasoning of these authorities. And I suspect that is what others are also looking for, an explanation of the dispute, so the serious opinions of all parties can be presented honestly & sympatheticly in the relevant articles. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Brian Sicknick

• Brian Sicknick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent (and rather blatant) introduction of unsourced and OR material, including some "false equivalency" text apparently intended to draw a moral equivalency between a violent mob and the police officers whom they attacked. I have been taken care of these issues as they have arisen (example A, example B), but more eyes would be valuable. Neutrality^talk 04:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH, NPOV

Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎

Contrary to a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump, Fox News, and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign. It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page in terms of establishing FISA's low bar for probable cause.

I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.

The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.

Sources

1. Is it SYNTH?
2. Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that this is problematic under NPOV and SYNTH. A qualifier, such as "according to the Horowitz report," might be useful. Snuish2 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Each part of the statement is supported by citations that back that part of the statement. It is undoubtedly true that the right-wing media pushed the false narrative that the Mueller investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, seeking to invalidate the entire Russia investigation by poisoning the well. Whether this is the most neutral way of reflecting that is a legitimate subject of discussion where reasonable people may differ. It is safe to say that any editor who uses the term "Russia hoax" probably lacks competence to take part in that discussion. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Silly question

Bit of a silly question but does removing untrue content from Wikipedia amount to original research if you can't provide a source to verify that the content is untrue? Tonight I had a difference of opinion with another user, and that user is now reviewing and reverting my other recent edits. A few weeks ago I removed a sentence from an article because I knew that a particular person was no longer in a particular job. [36] The official website hasn't been updated yet so the user has reverted my edit. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, removing it is OR. We have to wait for the sources to catch up. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's unsourced you can remove it, but if it's sourced then your personal knowledge doesn't matter. But there's often a middle ground: the source only supports the fact at the time it was published, so you could reasonably change the text to say, e.g., "As of 2019, Elizabeth Bennett was the Kilgore Trout Professor of Comparative History at Unseen University." This doesn't say the she's left the university, but it does hint to the reader that the information may be dated. pburka (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. jamacfarlane (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• It depends. See WP:VNOT / WP:ONUS; verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so we can choose to ignore a source, especially if the sourcing is weak or the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS are often also useful policies or guidelines to point to if something new and breathtaking seems clearly dubious. Often, in other words, if a source is blatantly wrong there will be other underlying problems you can point to to argue that we should wait until a better source appears. However, if the sourcing is strong enough for the claim and the topic is WP:DUE, you're usually going to have a hard time convincing other editors to omit something based solely on your own factual disagreement with what it says, since that alone isn't really a policy-based objection. In this particular case, though, the claim is unexceptional, so the solution is probably just to reword the text to more closely say precisely what it can cite (ie. they were employed at that specific date.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to post a reply but Aquillion covered it nicely so I will endorse what they said. Springee (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Another aspect is that if information is not widely covered in secondary sources, then it may lack weight for inclusion in the article. In this case, the source for the headteacher of Clovenfords Primary School School is the Scottish Borders Council. Is this information necessary in an article about CLovenfords? Unless the headteacher was a notable person, then probably not. TFD (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Veterans and People's Party

There are quite a few things here that seem to be OR and POV pushing.

• Islamophobia is sourced only to the party's manifesto (i.e. there's an OR judgement that the manifesto is Islamophobic). Ditto for the 'anti-islam' tag
• 'Far right' is pejorative in most cases, and should be sourced to a RS.

There appears to have been a multiyear edit war by User:Uamaol to include the unsourced claim that the party is far right. 2001:448A:106B:5533:DB9:3510:1D16:CD5F (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Take Me To Church

@User: ALI ANSARI85 has added unsourced content stating that Take Me To Church contains atheist/antireligious messaging four times based on their own interpretation of the lyrics. The user has also displayed an unwillingness to understand WP:OR policy after being warned repeatedly by User:Fyrael and myself. They have also accused editors of "think[ing] stupid" and making fun of themselves. Despite a slew of warnings on their talk page, their contributions are solely revolved around these disruptive edits. In my opinion, this is borderline WP:NOTHERE and possible WP:PA behavior, alongside a willful misunderstanding of WP policy. --Bettydaisies (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bettydaisies: I've blocked them from editing the article - they can still use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed Bijeh

Hi. Some registered and anonymous users (Possibly socks of User:سهراب بارسایی; reasons explained below) keep changing the birthdate in this article. Recently, birthdate changes based on original research in Persian Wikipedia (by above user), while a source (no. 1 from YJC) in the article indicates he is born on 1982 (equal to 1360–1361 in iranian calendar) resulted in protection of the article and the user is now changing the date here to prove he's right. user سهراب بارسایی has no purpose other than changing material in this specific subject and insists to change the date on my local talk page and that's why i think other single-purpose accounts/IPs editing the date are socks of this user. Regards. —Jeeputer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

MRA and Mackinac College

On June 25th 2018, I requested an edit of a statement that precedes the Mackinac College article: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Mackinac_College#Request_edit_on_25_June_2018 In this link, see text that begins ‘REPLACE’ and is then followed by ‘RATIONALE.’

The thrust of my request is that the following statement is incorrect: “This article is about the college created by founders of the Moral Re-Armament.” This statement, created for the Mackinac College article in Wikipedia, is Original Research posted on 0:32, 20 June 2014 without source or support, and is contradicted by numerous references including those listed in the RATIONALE. My edit was denied on the grounds that my sources are connected and I have a conflict of interest. I would like to appeal this decision, and if unchanged, would like to understand why an unsupported statement overrules a challenge from high-quality connected sources.

--The references are well published books. I can provide PDFs or e-text of relevant portions at your request. --The Mackinac College article is an important part of the biographies of still-living students, faculty, and staff from Mackinac College, Michigan. Our continuing involvement with the College is seen in our active Facebook Page (134 members), 3 recent Zoom calls (35, 36, and 39 people approximately), reunions (70 attended in 2017), and scheduled attendance at our 2020 reunion, now rolled over to 2021 (51st Reunion). Our list of 331 active addresses, emails, and phone numbers spans 38 American states and 18 other countries. Karin D. E. Everett (talk)

@Karin D. E. Everett: I'll take a look at it. jp×g 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User-performed currency conversions

There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train about whether user-performed currency conversions are WP:Routine calculations or not. This has implications for what box office gross we can report for a particular movie, since it affects which sources we can use and in what way.

My viewpoint is that they are not routine calculations, because currency conversion is not an exact science. It has furthermore been demonstrated (see the linked talk page discussion) that the method employed in this instance produces different figures than those that WP:Reliable sources (such as, in this case, Deadline Hollywood) report. Hence, I would argue, we should defer to WP:Reliable sources that directly support a given currency conversion.

Another editor disagrees, arguing that so long as we have a reliably sourced quantity in the original currency and a reliably sourced exchange rate corresponding to that point in time, we can multiply one by the other and report the result in the new currency.

For further details about the discussion so far, please see the indicated talk page section. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a Template:To USD (US$ is the standard on here, right?).Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed there is, but that's not what's being used here. Nor could it be (yet), since (part of) the gross is from this year and the template does not work for 2021 figures yet. Rather, the method that has been used here is multiplying the weekly gross in the original currency with a snapshot exchange rate sourced to a currency conversion site once a week, and then adding the results up for each week to get the total gross. Which to my eye is rather too advanced to be a WP:Routine calculation, and which is also not the method WP:Reliable sources use. It's not necessarily the "correct" way to do it (I go into more detail about other possible ways of doing it in the linked discussion), so I don't think it counts as a routine calculation (unlike, say, converting miles into kilometers where there is an inarguable correct way of doing it). TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. I don't really want to get into all the gory detail but that method you are describing is OR and susceptible to error (I doubt that sort of "accuracy" is required for the exercise anyway).Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that it is WP:OR is the point I have been making. The reason I brought it here is that the discussion at the talk page reached what was pretty much a deadlock position where I was saying "this is WP:Original research" and the other editor was saying "no, it isn't". I suppose this settles the matter, so I'll go ahead and replace the WP:OR figures with something that is properly sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the person who also added weekly conversions from local currencies into US$ to the Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train article. First of all, I agree that the comparisons should be done not using independent wikipedia sources but rather using more general sources. But at the same time, there has been no agreement in the method of currency conversions. Indeed, many articles on films have currency conversions based on not unified methods, most of which are not claimed to be orginal researches. Actually, Crunchyroll article (US$414,385,913, 45,833,982,679 yen) as of April 5th overestimated worldwide gross in JPY. (If conversions into JPY have been calculated weekly, it is still around 43.5 billion JPY for 414 million US$, and now is still around 45 billion yen for 430 million $). I will later revert the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train to the one I made, but I will not add the calculated data to this article. Anyway, if a unified agreement for the conversions of local currencies into US$ has been made, I will agree to use it. Orichalcum (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your line of reasoning. The currency conversion is just as much WP:OR on that page as on all the other pages it has been used on. You yourself point out that there's no consensus for your method of currency conversion. Even if there were, it's not like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides WP:NOR. If other pages use different methods that are also WP:OR, we should fix those pages rather than accept WP:OR on this one—see WP:OSE. The solution to widespread WP:OR is not more WP:OR. Sometimes we just have to accept that the information we would like sources to contain (in this case, currency conversions) simply can't be found—at least not yet. TompaDompa (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Orichalcum: Care to respond? TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly. At the same time, there is no consensus for the method of currency conversions to compare in total gross revenues.

For the cumulative methods of conversions, MOJO originally provided total gross revenues in US$ by applying such conversions as I have done for Demon Slayer. Indeed, you can find them by comparing revenues in JPY and USD, for example, original releases of Spirited away in 2001 and Frozen in 2014, where total gross revenues to date never decreased. But in 2016, MOJO stopped such conversions, so decrease in total gross revenues can happen for those converted into US$ since 2016. In case of Demon Slayer, total gross revenues in US$ decreased since February, 2021 according to MOJO, although roughly 3 billion yen (roughly 25 million US$) has been actually earned in Japan. To prevent this, cumulative conversions as MOJO previously did or conversions at release dates (as used in Chinese article of Demon Slayer the Movie) can be introduced.

Anyway, I also feel that too much currency conversions are included to the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. For example, total gross revenue in each country or each continent is summarized in the article, but I think the summarized Tables are enough to get such information.

In addition, comparing gross revenues in different films by using such calculated gross revenues can be [[WP:OR]. According to the 2020 ranking in MOJO, Demon Slayer ranked 4th, without counting additional $25 million in Japan (because of change in currency rates) and $30 million (mainly for Taiwan), but both "The Eight Hundred" and "My People, my Homeland" did not count Taiwanese revenues, which are counted for "Tenet" and "Sonic the Hedgehog". This can happen because MOJO provides data provided by the distributors in USA and some western countries, while MOJO does not pay attention for others, although Taiwanese revenues and admissions are freely available. Thus, the revenue of "My People, my Homeland" can be still higher than Demon Slayer, if such data are added to the revenues. Anyway, comparisons can be reliable only when comared in the same conditions, so I think it's better to use more generalized information for the comparison in such ranking articles rather than using data in each Wikipedia article.Orichalcum (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, comaring revenues of MOJO or The NUMBERS by revising data from outside can be WP:OR, but I will not care of this.Orichalcum (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly – Orichalcum, the reason we are here at WP:NORN is that this assertion is incorrect. In order for a calculation to be able to be considered to be a WP:Routine calculation, the result of the calculation has to be obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is very clearly not the case here. If this were a routine calculation, we would not see other sources arriving at different figures when converting the same quantities of the original currency, as indeed we do (I give a few examples of this over at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train, relating to Deadline Hollywood and a couple of other sources). You have combined two different sources—one that gives the gross in the original currency and one that provides an exchange rate—to reach a novel conclusion which is not explicitly stated by either source, namely the gross in USD. That's textbook WP:SYNTH. Not only that, you have done this repeatedly (with various sources for various local currencies) and then combined the results to reach an even more novel conclusion. This is rather egregious.

You have not presented any argument whatsoever as to why this would not be WP:Original research, you've merely asserted that it isn't with nothing backing that up. TompaDompa (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not notice the argument taken in Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. Actually, I added such calculations (weekly conversions) to stop the edits of intentionally overestimated figures. OK, I agree to use the worldwide total gross of Demon Slayer in US$ presented by the Crunchyroll, (although the amount in JPY is apparently overestimated by converting the cumulative data in US$ back to JPY in the latest simple currency conversion). I also agree not to use weekly cumulative conversion method that I introduced for the conversions in the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train, but I will keep simple conversions based on the release date for countries where cumulative data are not available, because such calculations can help people to understand the situation of the total gross. At the same time, I will keep the calculated result only limited in the Table. I will edit the article later.Orichalcum (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk · contribs) and Orichalcum (talk · contribs), the gross of the film is underestimated. As per my calculation, it should be $432.67 million but the number $414 million placed here are overestimated for 45.83 billion yen. Also, Wikipedia is the only site maintaining the data of the film. No website has updated its number since March 16. Could you all please reconsider your decision of Original Research for some times. Till any website updates its number. Catropst Benzt (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There are many articles that use OR, it's better to check them out first rather than disturbing this article. Because the gross in Japan is highly underestimated making an estimated loss of $15 million due to money fluctuations. Due to this problem, weekly revenue and its system of the exchange rate are more suitable as fluctuations isn't high in the weekly exchange rate, maintaining the gross well. 223.231.122.198 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If different editors can calculate different amounts then it is OR. It requires judgment on which source to use for conversion and whether to apply the rates in real times, daily, weekly, etc. There's also the issue of completeness of the takings. Also, we are using these calculations to determine rankings, which may differ from what reliable sources report. This doesn't help readers. Suppose for example that movie A was the top-grossing film according to reliable sources, while our calculation says it was movie B. The correct answer for a film studies examination is movie A. If the student wants to say B, he or she has to prove it. TFD (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that but the gross of the film is underestimate too much. The problem is not only about the ranking but how actual is the gross on conversion. And verification of the source so that the film gross is underestimate and at this moment of time no one have the same data as per Daryl Harding. Catropst Benzt (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

However frustrating it might be, best is to await reliable sources (and/or the conversion template).Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It just make no sense to use 360M for DS when it just wrong, Boxoffice Mojo and other sources convert the whole number every week into dollars so some week the number somehow decrease even, with the Japanese distributor reporting the numbers every week in yen, the only way is to convert the the numbers to dollars every week as soon as they are reported and the source currently being used for DS is CR which literally take the reported gross in Japanese and just convert it to USD as there is no official source in USD. Just for example CR reported that the movie in January grossed 35.70 billion yen (US$342.5 million) and in April it grossed 39.40 billion yen (US$362.14 million) so the movie increased 3.7 billion yen and US$19.64 million for that to happen it would require the yen to equal USD$0.005 which hasn't happened in the last twenty year. https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/01/12-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-steamrolls-past-35-billion-yen-at-japan-box-office https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/04/05-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-up-39-at-japanese-box-office-in-25th-week Adab1za (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• If it's impossible to maintain the List of highest-grossing R-rated films page without performing complicated and arbitrary calculations to come up with a disputed USD value for each film, then perhaps the organization of the page needs to be rethought. Articles which require constant updating and debatable calculations aren't compatible with Wikipedia's policies and might be better suited to a different website. Not everything that exists needs to be on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTDATABASE). pburka (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for your explanation and violation as per WP:OR and WP:RS. But, I would like to say that I didn't look problem for ranking. Ever since the film was released on October 16, 2020, many articles were published and gross as per USD was updated as adjusted to the current exchange of JPY which was slightly (~0.0001-0.0023) lower as compared to weekly exchange rate. Making no difference between the weekly conversion of revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate. This conversion was so stable that JPY was maintaining a fixed value against USD almost three months. (neglecting the point difference) But, after the arrival of New Year, the exchange rate of JPY reached a high level of unstablity against USD making increasing difference between daily and weekly exchange rate. (These differences were directly observed by the table, maintained by Orinhalcum, before it's removal by TompaDompa). At present, the conversion of the gross of film stands at $358-$365 million as per current exchange rate and fixed and stable conversion of weekly revenue, stand at $380.1 million as per weekly exchange rate. (A huge difference of about $15-$22 million, a objection placed by TompaDompa, if Orinchlam was correct regarding the data placed on the table.)

  Regardless the objection, I have a doubt in my mind that I like to share to you all.

  If JPY>>> then likewise USD>>>, but I see that the opposite is taking place, (for reference, you all can visit the weekly revenue collection report by BOX OFFICE MOJO) USD value of the film is falling against the increasing JPY value. I would also like to asked if both Anime News Network and Crunchyroll are considered reliable source as per WP: Reliable Sources, then why are the articles of both website are not reporting the same value of USD, sometimes Crunchyroll overtake ANN data, later ANN report higher gross than the former one. To make everything clear, I have myself gone through the source, upon some minute calculation, one thing came to the conclusion that these differences are due to current exchange rate of JPY against USD definitely Money Fluctuations.

  Some important points that I observed:

  • Daryl Harding has accepted that no one can have the same data as per his tweet.
  • Although, there is a huge difference between conversion of weekly revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate in the field of USD. But, a point of interest was observed that JPY remain unchanged in either method of conversion backed from USD. The conclusion I establish through this is that neither $414.3 million nor $433 million are wrong. Difference is only the method of conversion.
  • As per @meJat32's tweet, he placed a argument to a User that neither daily exchange rate nor weekly exchange rate differ much. But, if anyone follows current exchange rate then, it would provide an inaccurate data. (This is the reason why Crunchyroll and Anime News Network articles are not collaborating each i.e, not supporting each other statement.)

  Directly to the point, I would like to ask you all

  • Whether it is better to switch the worldwide gross of the film to JPY like the article Your Name and Weathering with You.

  • Or restore the page and maintain the gross of the film as done earlier by a experience User.

  I do understand the policy that says Wikipedia is not a Database. But, since early March, no articles are publishing the gross of film. Many new websites are maintaining the gross of the film as per verification from Wikipedia. The gross of the film is highly determine by the value of JPY against USD. If JPY keeps falling against USD, then the gross of the film can fall below $300 million if we all follow daily exchange rate. But If the opposite take place then, the gross of the film can reach as high as $526 million (for ¥40 billion), which can be overlooked as major editing problem. For some interval of time I would like to ask keep aside the policies and restore the earlier version of the article till a relevant source noticed the method of conversion and published a article regarding the gross. So, that any one of us can cite it as reference and remove the User performed conversion as per policy of Wikipedia on Original Research.

  Why can't a Box Office Analyst tweet be placed as reference? I don't know any policy which abstract the edit. As per mentioned talk page, TompaDompa has stated that Sources should convert the regional currencies for users to edit. But @meJat32 is a Box Office Analyst, who has already convert the currencies to USD. Could someone clarify this doubt of mine? Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  According to my calculations, it should be near about $380.1 million for Japan. I would like to see how high it could once USD fall against JPY. The problem is only in the gross of Japan. I would think of switch to JPY but wants to know what are the other possible ways of solving this problem. Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is now something of a moot point, since Deadline Hollywood has published an article with a figure for the worldwide gross that more-or-less matches the figure that the user-performed currency conversions resulted in, so we now simply cite that instead of relying on WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-Frozen-41.--寒吉 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I believe the issue of the Frozen gross is something you are very familiar with and thus in a good position to address. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see currency conversions as an OR issue, but I think they can come under WP:SYNTHESIS. WP:CALC permits simple calculations, and currency conversions are for the most part simple: if you have the base figure and the conversion rate it is easy to work out. I doubt anybody would dispute that. Box Office Mojo has changed since the Frozen incident, but what used to happen was that they would report the weekend grosses in dollars along with the exchange rate they used for the conversions. We needed the weekly figure to increment the total, so we just used the same conversion rate as Box Office Mojo i.e. the base figure and the conversion rate both came from BOM. The problems with conversions occur when editors get a figure and feed it through some random conversion calculator. In the case of Frozen we ended up with a figure that BOM would have produced if they had just done it themselves. The only conversion that was a problem was the German reissue because the figure jumped over a period of several months, so we didn't know which conversion rate to use. What we did though in this single case was provide a lower-bound estimate (what we knew from BOM though was that the euro never fell below parity so we knew the absolute minimum it could have earned). So to recap: we did perform some conversions in the case of Frozen, but the conversion rate in all but one case was given to use by BOM itself. I would say these calculations would qualify under CALC. The one questionable calculation was for Germany where we didn't know what the conversion rate was, but we did know the minimum it could have been, so we just produced a lower-bound figure for in that one particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, The problem is solved and I am happy that Deadline Hollywood has published the correct figure. The figure is similar to Box Office Analyst @ichika_kasuga and @meJat32's tweets. Hope that in future, this type of problem doesn't arise again.Catropst Benzt (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Given the likely widespread impact of this decision, should an RfC be initiated on this matter? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mike Parson

On the Mike Parson page, I noticed that it wrongly attributed a quote that was actually from Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 about gubernatorial appointments as being from the Missouri Constitution. I corrected the attribution (and added a source because as it was previously unsourced) and I also quoted what the Missouri Constitution actually says about gubernatorial appointments. I added a reliable source for that as well. I did not add my own opinion or analysis, and the two sources together do not really lead to any kind of conclusion or synthesis. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit citing WP:OR. I don't think that it was WP:OR and explained why I thought that in the talk page given that it does not outright prevent the use of primary sources and I literally offered no analysis, opinion, or conclusion. After I explained that, Snooganssnoogans merely told me to see WP:SYNTH which I had already explained why I don't think it falls under. It doesn't look like we're going to be agreeing any time soon. I came here to get some opinions from uninvolved parties. I'm not all that experienced with Wikipedia policies, but at least the way I read it, I don't think that my edit falls under it.JMM12345 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this product or service. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ifat/Adal

This statement on the Ifat Sultanate which reads "The majority of scholars agree the population of the leading principality of Ifat Sultanate were no doubt the Somalis who were headquartered in Zeila" is not found in the book which is self published. The second statement which reads "In the predominately Somali capital of the Ifat Sultanate, Zeila, and local Somali territories, the Arabic and Somali languages were most commonly present." is also not found. User:Ayaltimo seems to think otherwise per this edit [37]. Same issue on the Adal Sultanate article, the statement which reads "The sultanate and state were established by the local inhabitants of Zeila." is not supported by the source. [38] Magherbin (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The book by Yohannes Mekonnen clearly identifies its source as being Wikipedia. It cannot be accepted as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Ayaltimo, please discuss this source on the article talk page before attempting to restore it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Eggishorn. I was planning to remove it anyway but I wanted to continue the discussion and make a deal with the user Magherbin which is why I didn't want to make any changes yet so that we can come to a conclusion. The Cambridge source I added states Zeila was predominantly Somali and you can look it up yourself. [39] Ayaltimo (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere does it mention it was a Somali capital nor does it discuss languages arabic and Somali being most commonly used. Magherbin (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The capital source is here History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:

"Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by..."

If Zeila was predominantly Somali how can you say it wasn't spoken by Somalis? If you go to page 137 it clarifies the lowland was predominantly spoken by eastern Cushitic speakers and Somalis are eastern Cushitic and Zeila is located in the lowland. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:59 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats your own conclusion and you're using WP:SYNTH, there are many cushitic languages in the region. I dont think you're attuned on how to cite references. I suggest going through policies. Magherbin (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would agree to this. However, according to the source, Zeila was predominantly Somali [40] so the confusion ends here. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:13 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparative table at Vichy anti-Jewish legislation

I believe the table at Vichy anti-Jewish legislation#Laws and statutes^[perma] is original research, and should be removed, or pared down to just the first two columns. This table (which goes back at least 14 years) purports to show a comparison of how long it took in Vichy France, vs in Nazi Germany, for certain antisemitic laws to take effect after the regime first took power. Example: it took the Nazis 5 years 4 mos. (after 1933 rise to power) to demand registration of Jewish businesses, whereas it took Vichy 1 year 1 month (after 1940 rise to power) to enact a similar law.

I've never seen this outside Wikipedia, and I believe it is original research by some editor. I don't doubt that each individual fact might be verifiable, but it's WP:SYNTH to put them together, and OR if we are the first to do it, right? The fact that this has been around for so long gives me pause, but I'm inclined to just rip out the last three columns of the table, keeping just the Vichy data. If there's a reliable source that combines this information in a single source, then I'm fine with it. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, I agree that it is obviously synthesis and mostly unsourced. I don't see any value to retaining a table that is mostly unsourced even if it is just the first two columns so I've removed the entire section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: thanks for validating what I suspected. I've started to rebuild it from scratch as a table strictly about Vichy laws, dropping the SYNTH and sourcing items as they are added. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yahweh

What do you think about [41]? Namely:

After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

has been changed to:

After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

although none of the WP:RS has changed in the whole paragraph.

Something fishy also noticed at [42]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I want to second this. There's some editing that's raising my hackles going on there, but I'm not familiar enough with the history to enumerate all the problems with it. Not all of the changes are bad (some are neutral and some okay), but they included at least one example where the edit straight up failed verification (link 2 in Tgeorgescu's comments, above). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Their third and fourth attempt at introducing stuff which does not pass WP:V: [43], [44]. And I'm only counting events I am aware of. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Karma1998 has received a formal warning at [45] to desist forever from fabricating unverifiable sentences. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong diff above (first). It should be [46]. So, it wasn't just WP:OR, Karma1998 has edit warred to include WP:OR in the voice of Wikipedia. Doubly offensive.
  • So, they have 8 diffs with WP:OR: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Karma1998 is not a newbie, so they are supposed to already know these aren't good faith edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • You have repeatedly violated copyright since being blocked in 2016, including this year. That alone should be more than enough to leave you blocked indefinitely. Add on top of that, your personal attacks (which continued after you were blocked) and your long-term tendentious editing. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. You've gone out of your way to destroy the community's trust in you. You are correct, what you did was inexcusable. Yamla (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know if they were fabricating sources, but definitely they were fabricating unverifiable sentences, and they were attributing them to already cited sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Tgeorgescu: Not trying to sound dismissive (I largely agree with you, though with some caveats), but I think this thread would be better suited to WP:ANI. If you file a thread, I will relate my experience checking one of Karma's edits there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @MPants at work: WP:ANI#I would have expected an apology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I see you've been advised to drop that one and resume discussion here (not surprisingly; you were surprisingly opaque in that ANI thread, and I believe you shot yourself in the foot as a result. I agree that there's merit to the thread, but you didn't didn't point it out well enough. So let's take the advice you were offered.

I agree with you about Karma's editing; it's sometimes good, sometimes bad, but reliably amateurish w.r.t our policies and norms in any case (except for their prose). So what would help the most here would be to collapse or strike most of what's above, and start again. Go through that list of edits and write out what's wrong with each one. I'll add the instance one of their edits failed verification when I checked it, and we can go take a look at other edits by this person, and those of us willing to (not you, please) will try to help Karma adhere better to our policies in the future. If the problem persists, please contact me and I'll help you write a more productive comment to start a new ANI thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

[55] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?

[56] where did this is highly disputed among scholars came from? and why four pages for WP:V such stuff?

[57] where did the United Monarchy came from?

[58] where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?

[59] where did this is highly disputed among scholars came from? and why four pages for WP:V such stuff? where did the 10th century came from? where did the United Monarchy came from?

[60] where did this is highly disputed among scholars came from? and why four pages for WP:V such stuff?

[61] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area came from?

[62] where did or may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area came from?

Even if I grant that one of the diffs is allowed according to WP:CITELEAD, seven other diffs remain. Honestly, my impression from seeing these edits was that they perform fake edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, Karma1998 had:

• a POV (that it is clear that the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) has really existed; it might be a majority view, but it is easily razored with Hitchen's razor, since there is no convincing evidence either way; archaeology is primarily based upon physical evidence and no such evidence exists for the United Monarchy, if there is no physical evidence, it isn't archaeology, it could be higher criticism instead);
• some good edits;
• some fake edits (now, in his view those are not fake; but for the rest of us, those edits fail WP:V so we default to those edits being fake, regardless of whether those are true or not, see WP:VNT).

So, yeah, this is the reason of my irritation in respect to Karma's edits: if their edits are not verifiable, the Wikipedia Community defaults to such edits being fabrications. They have not been singled out for special treatment, so unless WP:V has been abolished, I was right to attack their edits.

Morals: Karma1998 has to desist forever from unverifiable edits, otherwise they will land in hot water. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Karma1998 has to be stopped: look at [63] and search for Zwiep (misspelled as Zweip). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Why should I be stopped? Because I use sources you don't like? I sourced the works of Raymond E. Brown, N. T. Wright, E. P. Sanders and James Dunn, who are recognised to be some of the most respected scholars of the historical Jesus. Instead, you insist in quoting Arie W. Zwiep, a minor scholar. --Karma1998 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: I don't care if Zwiep is minor scholar or not. I care that your edit failed WP:V and this is what we are discussing here. WP:V is mandatory for all editors, you are not somehow exempted from obeying it. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: What exactly should I do? I'm using reliable sources from reliable scholars. I don't see what's wrong with it. The only reaonable explanation that comes to my mind is that you don't like my sources and want to keep using the sources that most please you.--Karma1998 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: Listen, you should read WP:V and WP:OR from top to bottom, and then read them again, till you understand and obey them. You have not been singled out for special treatment. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You changed and it is preserved also in Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the penitent thief, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise".{{sfn|Zwiep|1997|pp=76-77}} to Other scholars disagree and state that the empty tomb is a late development:{{sfn|Zweip|1997|p=76-77}}. As far as I can see from Google Books, the citation supports neither version.

So, you have changed an unverifiable sentence to a completely another unverifiable sentence. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

They failed to provide page numbers for [64] despite being specifically asked for page numbers at User talk:Karma1998#Jesus. Failing again at [65]. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: Karma, most of the edits presented here failed WP:V, as tgerogescu has said. What this means is not that you have been using bad sources, but that the sources do not say what you wrote. I'm going through them right now, and so far, only 1 edit of your which has been linked here has actually passed verification. In two cases, you used a work of theology (albeit written by someone with a history degree) to support claims about history which that work doesn't even address. In fact, the only mentions of "monarchy" in that work are passing. In other cases, you changed existing text to say unrelated things, while leaving the citation in place.

I'm currently creating a write-up to be used as an ANI report. But I fucking hate the idea of willingly participating on the drama boards, so you've got the chance right now to promise us that you'll check your sources and ensure that they say what you're writing in all your edits in the future.

And please always provide page numbers when citing a book; most editors agree that any citation to a book with hundreds of pages that doesn't provide page numbers is basically an admission that the editor adding it simply assumes the book supports their claim, and is treated as a de-facto failure of verification. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I think I have failed to explain my argument and I apologize for that. I have some books from Raymond Brown, Craig Evans and James Dunn (all of whom are very respected scholars of the historical Jesus) who support my point. Can I use them to edit the page? -Karma1998 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but: You need to provide page numbers and double check before editing that the sources directly (not implicitly) support the text you intend to add. I also strongly recommend you review your previous edits, particularly where you've changed what the articles stated, but also where you've added to what the articles stated, and verify that the source does indeed support your edit. If it doesn't, you should self-revert, rather than making corrections directly.

I'd also really like to see some acknowledgement that you understand what tgeorgescu and I are saying here.

If you can commit to that, I'll post my write-up on your talk page, instead of at ANI, and that will give you a good starting point towards correcting the errors you've introduced, as well as reassuring tgeorgescu and I that your purpose here is to improve the articles and that it's possible for us to work collaboratively with you towards that goal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I will provide page numbers and I will check my previous edits. However, I must stress how often religion-related pages on Wikipedia are in a very bad quality state: often it presents matters as if there were a scholar consensus on them, while in fact there often isn't one (the Empty Tomb is an example of that); in other cases it presents the ideas of some scholars as if they were the scholarly consensus, while, in fact, they aren't (like John Dominic Crossan, who is widely considered on the fringe side of the debate); in some cases it even gives credence to notorious conspiracy theories (such as those of Simcha Jacobovici, whose theories have been derided and rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars). I think we need to pay more attention on these subjects, considering that they are very delicate for many people. --Karma1998 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar is WP:FRINGE by design; however some scholars who were associated with it aren't fringe. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, however in this case, Crossan definitely seems to be one of the fringe figures. I mean, simply arguing a non-eschatological Jesus is pretty fringe. It's controversial even within evangelical scholarship. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that isn't really the problem, some mainstream scholars have suggested a non-escathological Jesus (N. T. Wright, J. P. Maier and Klaus Berger); the problem is that the Crossan thinks that Jesus was some kind of cynical philosopher (which is very odd for a 1st century carpenter) and often uses unreliable sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter.--Karma1998 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Cynical philosopher" is about what I picture whenever I read "non-escatological portrayal of Jesus". I know the idea has been bandied about a bit in mainstream circles, but it always read as more of a thought experiment to try and sus out some minutiae. Indeed, the only context in which I've directly seen it treated with anything resembling the same seriousness as the apocalyptic portrayal has been in a discussion of the Q source, used in sort of a "what might Jesus have actually said that would be interpreted as passage X, and how can we use that to figure out which document it originated in?" I've long since forgotten the book I found it in, but I believe A. K. M. Adam, quoted a bit from it in James: A Handbook if you want to look it up.

The method in question has a built in explanation for why Jerome never mentioned Q, and no copies were preserved; if Q contained more philosophical and less eschatological quotes, it might have been seen as a proto-non-canonical gospel, with the altered quotes in Luke and Matthew more in line with the image of Jesus portrayed in Mark. Sorry. Just geeking out a bit.

I wasn't aware that Wright had ever suggested such a thing, however. It seems about up his alley, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't trust either Crossan or Wright, but I have to admit they are big names in Bible scholarship and cannot be treated as fringe scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wright has always seemed to have his feet on the ground, even though he likes to get his head up in the clouds from time to time. Crossan... Well, he's cited a lot, that's for sure. From what I've seen though, it's usually by scholars disagreeing with him or using him as an example of someone who doesn't agree with the consensus on some matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

However, I must stress how often religion-related pages on Wikipedia are in a very bad quality state On that, we agree. And I agree that you've been doing good work at, for example, the Jacobovici article. The only problems I'm seeing are the edits that failed verification, and those aren't even a majority of your edits in the topic, they just happen to be on topics that are controversial, and which gives the impression of pushing a biblical literalist POV (which, to be clear, I do not think you are doing). That tends to raise others' hackles.

I'm still working on the write-up, but your responses here have been quite reassuring to me, so I'll post it to your talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Report about detected original research case

Collapse WP:FORUMSHOPPING

I believe USER: Fact789 is trying to lobby for the original research in the SoftSwiss article. This does not look like a promotional issue, but like black PR, the purpose of which is to defame the object of the article. When I checked the unrelible and unverified citations tags (bad source tags) in the article, I found that the quoted text and the information on the external site did not match. Then I deleted the unconfirmed theses, and the user USER: Fact789 rolled them back and continues to do this for several days now. Theses deleted from the article: "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities". - There are no mentions on referenced media that SoftSwiss is operates any of blocked casinos. Softswiss as article says is a software developer, not a casino operator. There're even no mentions about SoftSwiss in the link which support the theses, look through them "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money'" - references do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them "In March 2021, Spillemyndigheden, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), Spelinspektionen, also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision" - References do not contain information supporting this thesis, look through them Deleted theses violate the principals described in Wikipedia:No original research, and also demonstrate disrespect to the requirements for verifiability and reliability of references described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am sure that further investigation will show these account also have conflict of interests with the competitors company Vlavluck (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) @Vlavluck:, Please don't forum shop. You posted this exact same text in three places and that is highly excessive even if you think there's a need to get many eyes on the dispute or that the dispute violates multiple strictures. You have started this discussion on the article talk page, which is the first place that you should try to resolve any content dispute. If you fail to find a satisfactory resolution, then you may consider escalating the issue. Se the Dispute Resolution procedure for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC) References

Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC

Talk:Ayurveda has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Topic: What is the position of the Indian Medical Association on Ayurveda?

-Wikihc (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Tennis strategy

• Tennis strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nearly no sources given for this article which would otherwise look quite complete. I suspect there's a significant amount of OR that needs trimming down. Britannica has something about this (but note that the coverage there is about mostly shot selection), so it's likely we should be able to have something too, ideally not based on some person's interpretations and personal opinions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"a small number of scientists"

In Wuhan Institute of Virology, is this sentence, In response to the WHO report, some politicians and a small number of scientists have called for further investigations into the matter. is the "small number" OR editorializing of WP:PRIMARY sources? It's sourced to [66], [67], [68] Geogene (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

None of these are primary sources except the Science letter, and this is forum-shopping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

See also this long post for an in-depth explanation of the FRINGE nature of the topic among scientists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All sources may be primary or secondary based on the context in which they're used. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You dismissed secondary analysis in newspapers, claiming that all of these are PRIMARY sources (opinion pieces or the like). That's clearly not the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get outside opinions from uninvolved editors, not to endlessly rehash talk page discussions with the same people. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Outside opinion from an uninvolved editor: RandomCanadian is correct. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Discussion moot - I've found a reputable source which says this almost identically, see [69] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Miles Davis

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Talk:Miles Davis#I question the Knighthood source. that may interest watchers of this board. Elizium23 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Jojar S Dhinsa

• Jojar S Dhinsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BobBobster1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VirginOnMadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit, VirginOnMadness changed the lede of Jojar S Dhinsa to claim that Dhinsa is not, in fact, a successful entrepreneur since the companies registered to him in the UK companies registry are all listed as "Dissolved". This edit ignores the existence of the Athlone Group's [www.athlonegroup.com/ own website] (a primary source, to be sure, but one we could reasonably count on to verify who their own CEO is), and this profile in Bdaily News. BobBobster1 has been arguing on my user talk page (see the June 2021 section) that my edits to restore the original information, despite the presence of citations to back up the original, constitute vandalism. I counter with the argument that BobBobster1's arguments amount to original research: since he is unable to find evidence in his own limited searches that Dhinsa is the entrepreneur the article claims him to be, that the information must be false. BobBobster1 has argued on my talk page that only company registries are valid sources and that the existence of published articles is insufficient. (His claim is that I would need to contact the publisher and verify their sources for myself.)

I am seeking administrator intervention against BobBobster1, who appears to have a axe to grind against Dhinsa. Looking at the history of the Dhinsa biography, one can find that it is replete with additions by BobBobster1 that "no evidence can be found" for the various claims of the article. (I specifically point to this edit, but there are others.) I argue that this is not only a NOR violation, it is also a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violation.

Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• The claim that "He is regarded as one of the UK’s most successful entrepreneurs" appears to be unsourced, and such a bold claim would require very strong sourcing to remain. VirginOnMadness was correct to remove it. pburka (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pburka: Agreed as far as the "most successful entrepreneurs" goes, and in the version I edited, that statement was eliminated. But VirginOnMadness fully restored BobBobert1's lede paragraph which questions the very existence of any companies that Dhinsa leads, with no reliable source to question the claim. (Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @WikiDan61: A company isn't a scientific experimemt, it's a legal entity. And as such, a registration number would not be hard to find. BobBobster1 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1. A website only proves there is a website. BobBobster1 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

2. Bdaily News is a "paid for" news publisher. https://marketing.bdaily.co.uk/products/featured-articles?variant=793100615689 BobBobster1 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

3. ″Finally, I note that VirginOnMadness has made only a single contribution to Wikipedia, which is to restore text earlier added by BobBobster1. I suspect WP:SOCK may also be involved here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)″

I have been restoring my own edits after vandalism and uncited edits, and show a history of this. Why would I create another account to do this only once? BobBobster1 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@BobBobster1: I would claim that your edits are the vandalism; casting aspersion on a living person without sufficient evidence. (See WP:BLP.) You are concluding from your own research into the UK companies registration that Dhinsa is not who he claims to be. We need a reliable source to back up a claim asserting that either a) Athlone Group does not actually exist or b) Dhinsa is not its Chairman and CEO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @WikiDan61: I'm not claiming anything or casting asperions, I just added sources for the companies he has been involved with (companies that have proof of existing with registration numbers, the fact they are all dissolved is neither here nor there) if someone wishes to add Athlone Group to the list they would need to provide a registration number (which is proof a company exists as a legal entity). BobBobster1 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like everyone involved in this dispute is relying heavily on primary or unreliable sources. When there aren't strong secondary sources it's easy to veer into original research. I question whether the subject of this article is notable, given the quality of sources currently present. pburka (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pburka: I have also found these sources:
    • UK Tech News
    • The Irish Times
    • The Birmingham Mail
    • The Coventry Telegraph

One may argue Dhinsa's notability (although some of these source claim him to be one of the wealthiest men in the UK, so I'd find that a hard argument to make); but there are reliable source aplenty to verify that he is the CEO of Athlone Group, an actual company, a claim that BobBobster1 disputes merely because he can't find a registration number for it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: It's a lot more than the lack of registration number, most reasons I can't post because of Wikipedia's legal policy. Remember this is supposedly a $23 billion per year turnover group with 47 companies in the group (ever heard of one being mentioned in any articles?), and nothing more than fluff articles and no evidence to back up the claims in these articles. And why is Dhinsa not mentioned in The Times Rich List?, I advise you to look a bit deeper ;) BobBobster1 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to rely excessively on primary sources like Company House, but Bob's right that there's something fishy here. If this businessperson and his Athlone Group are really notable, I'd expect to see a lot more coverage than a handful of human interest stories in local newspapers. Where are the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal articles? Rather than try to correct the article with info from primary sources, my inclination would be to delete it entirely. pburka (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

When in doubt Delete. It can always be recreated if better evidence is found. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC).

I'm a big enough man to admit when I am wrong, and in this case, I appear to have been quite wrong. While BobBobert1's methods were not the best, and while it is verifiable that Dhinsa is the CEO and Chair of Athlone Group, it does not appear that Athlone Group is a notable organization. Upon close inspection, much of the information in Dhinsa's biography fails verification. Many of the sources list him as a British billionaire, yet he does not appear on any major publication's lists of British billionaires. Several of the remaining sourcs are somewhat sketchy as well (a link to the Elephant Family fundraiser flyer that does not verify Dhinsa as being involved with that charity; a link to a YouTube video purporting to be a Discovery Channel program about European billionaire entrepreneurs, but which includes no credits to verify its sourcing and was posted by an account having nothing to do with the Discovery Channel). BobBobert1, I apologize for having brought the matter here to the noticeboard; I agree with the others that this article should probably be deleted, and I will likely be the one to start the AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate you taking the time to look into him and the sources. I'm still new to Wikipedia, so apologies about the method I used; but i'm glad you brough it here so we could discuss. no apology needed!.BobBobster1 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Definition

Dominic Mayers and Norfolkbigfish provided a definition for the "crusading movement". According to their definition, the movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades". I remarked that this summary could be a good approach to present the movement, but we should not use it as a definition, because definitions in connection with crusades and crusading are controversial. I asked them to verify this definition, but they say common sense confirms it. Is common sense enough to define a term in WP, or all definitions are to be verified by a reference to a scholarly work? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not really offering a definition. There is no interest in offering a definition of "crusading movement", because it has a natural meaning. As we pointed out to Borsoka, none of the many authors who used that expression bothered to define it. In fact, Borsoka himself complained that this sentence does not mean much, because it refers to Crusades. If it does not mean much, it's not really a definition. It is just a very natural and general affirmation regarding "crusading movement" that we use to be more explicit about the scope of the article, which is something that must be done as soon as possible in the article. There is nothing contentious in this affirmation. We asked several times Borsoka to explain what is contentious in this statement. His reply above is that it is problematic, because the definition of crusades is problematic, but we avoid this issue, because we refer to the article Crusades. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The text in question is based on Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1995). "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-0-19285428-5.. Riley-Smith was one of the foremost academic, educator and influencer working in the field. Dominic Mayers is correct in writing that the lead does not offer a definition because as Riley-Smith wrote It must be admitted that crusading is not easy to define. The movement lasted a very long time and opinions and policies changed; for instance, the development of crusade leagues was an adaptation of crusading to suit the rise of the nation state. Crusading involved men and women from every region of western Europe and from all classes; attitudes can never have been homogeneous. And it appealed at the same time to intellectuals and to the general public, so that we are faced by a range of ideas from the most cerebral to the most primitive, from the peaks of moral theology to the troughs of anti-semitic blood-feuds. Ideas from different ends of the spectrum, moreover, interreacted. Because crusading was a voluntary activity, popes and preachers had to transmit the theology in a popular form, and it was not uncommon for popular conceptions to attach themselves to official Church reaching. For instance, crusades had technically to be defensive—Christians could not fight wars of conversion—but at grassroots' level people perceived Christianity to be a muscular religion, and missionary elements again and again pervaded crusading thought and propaganda. In particular reference to the sentences in question he wrote The crusading movement had involved every country in Europe, touching almost every area of life—the Church and religious thought, politics, the economy, and society—as well as generating its own literature. It had an enduring influence on the history of the western Islamic world and the Baltic region and The astonishing achievement of the expedition partly inspired the departure of 'the third wave', the so-called crusade of noi, but no one in these years could have predicted that what Urban had conjured up would prove to be only the First Crusade, nor that the crusade would come to be deployed elsewhere than in the Holy Land and against opponents other than Muslims—in short, that the crusading movement would emerge to become one of the most important components, and defining characteristics, of late medieval western culture. Those last two quotes are sourced in the body and provide a pretty good description of what this article is about e.g. the Crusade Movement and why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: thank you for copying this lengthy quote. Which part of it verifies the statement that the crusading movement was "the progressive creation of institutions and of an ideology associated with crusades", especially because Riley-Smith does not speak of institutions or of a single ideology. @Dominic Mayers: thank you for your remark. If my understanding is correct you suggest that Riley-Smith is wrong when writing that "crusading is not easy to define" because "crusading movement" has a natural meaning. Could you explain the natural meaning of the term? Or, alternatively, could we conclude that references to common sense and natural meaning are useless in connection with the crusades and crusading? Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to debate when the lead changes mid-discussion. I have restored to the last good version, so the search for consensus can continue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we all have changed the lead mid-discussion. Thank you for not restoring your original research. This is an important step to reach a consensual lead. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka by "usual meaning", I referred to the usual meanings of "movement" and "crusades" whatever these are. These meanings vary in different contexts, but they have enough in common to claim that there is a "usual meaning". For example, the term "movement" has a different meaning in Religious movement, Political movement, Social movement, etc., but it is always the "usual meaning" of movement, the same one as in "Crusading movement". My point is that despite these important variations, no experts bothered to formally define "crusading movement". Instead, they relied on the usual meaning and its use in the context. The statement only clarifies a bit this meaning in the context of Crusades and we need to do that, because it makes the scope of the article more explicit. There might be room for improvement. In particular, after reading Norfolkbigfish's quotes, I realize that we are not only interested in institutions that are created to support the movement and are part of this movement, but also in the influences the movement had on existing institutions. However, this is not the issue that you raise. You seem concerned about the proper use of the terms "institutions" and "ideology", and require that we can verify these uses. Perhaps Norfolkbigfish can provide examples of the use of "institutions" and "ideology" in the context of crusading so that, if these uses exist, we can see that our use of these terms is compatible. If there are none, it's not a problem, because it only means that we use the common meaning of these terms, which is fine, as long as the content (not the exact terminology) is verifiable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that we consider this discussion closed, because we seem to be moving ahead with improvements on the article. It makes no sense to significantly edit the article while we discuss here, because the subject and the issue are already hard to follow even when the problematic status of the article is available. In my view, the version obtained after these edits does not address the issue of specifying the scope of the article in terms of "institutions" and "ideology" (or "ideologies") or an equivalent terminology. However, there are other issues to consider and perhaps it will be wise to first work on these issues in the body of the article and only after go back to the lead to find a way to better explain the scope of the article. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am glad that you understand the usual (or natural?) meaning of the term "crusading movement", but please also understand that scholars are less optimistic. I agree that the lead and the article need significant improvement, especially because the article's scope and its existence are still debated, but perhaps we all should follow usual (or natural?) WP policies, including WP:NOR when editing to reach a consensus. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the article, if you disagree that there should be an article that focuses on the ideology behind crusading and its relation with institutions, then explain why, but not here, because the scope is something that we decide and it does not need to be verifiable. Of course, there must exist articles that discuss ideology and institutions in relation with crusades, but there are many and there is no OR issue. What we decide to cover and how we explain it do not need to be verified. The discussion here should be closed. It is easy to create a problem by seeing the necessary specification of the scope as if it was a definition of "crusading movement" and insists that it must be verifiable, etc. But using this to refuse to clarify the scope of the article is not practical at all. It will bring us nowhere. We just need to explain what is the scope (as above) without presenting it as a contentious definition of "crusading movement". Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

From the beginning, I emphasized that institutions and ideologies could be an acceptable scope for the article about crusading movement. I maintain that the article may contain only statements that can be verified. As Norfolkbigfish deleted your joint original research, I agree there is no need to discuss this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

So, I consider this discussion closed, but there is no consensus that there was OR. There were issues in the sentence, but only because it did not describe well the scope, not because it was OR. Certainly, it makes no sense that we can describe the scope above the lead as you did in your last edit, but yet cannot do it in the lead because it would be OR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. I accept your argumentation. If we cannot describe the scope above the lead without verifying it, we should merge the article into crusades as it is suggested by many editors. I suggest we should continue this discussion on the article's Talk page. 06:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is closed or that it is accepted that there is no OR here. It really needs one or more neutral editors to give an opinion before it is closed and we all move on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research at SoftSwiss

Hi! I’ve noticed traces of the original research in the SoftSwiss article made by User talk:Novobat, User talk:Fact789 and few more contributors. In places where I found irregularities or inaccuracies I placed tags [verification failed], [better source needed], [unreliable sources], [citation needed]. In several places the source material was rephrased with a change in its meaning. In others, the author combines material from several sources to come to a conclusion that is not directly stated in any of the sources and does not imply it. The article also contains links to dubious zines about cryptocurrency and links to unverifiable information from the Webarchive.

I. Conclusion that is not directly stated

(а) "In 2021, multiple gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were banned in Australia as well as several European countries, following formal investigations into illegal activity by the respective Gambling Authorities"

(b) "In February 2021, multiple illegal offshore gambling websites operated by SoftSwiss were blocked due to illegal activity, following an order given by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to Australian internet service providers (ISPs). The ACMA also urged Australian users of these sites to withdraw their money.[31][better source needed][32][better source needed]"

(c) "In March 2021, the Danish Gambling Authority (DGA), announced the blocking of several online casinos operated by SoftSwiss subsidiary, Direx N.V. According to the DGA, these gambling websites operated without a license and offered Danish users unfair and illegal gambling products.[33][better source needed][34][better source needed] The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA), also recently banned some of SoftSwiss' online casinos, but later revoked the decision.[35][better source needed][36][better source needed][37][better source needed]"

The main point: Softswiss as article declaire is a software developer for an online casino platform but not a casino operator. As a result there are no supply for these three statements on the source materials.

II. Rephrased with a change in its meaning

(d)"The trading company for SoftSwiss is the Cypriot company Direx Limited.[citation needed] The Curaçao-based company Direx N.V is the hundred percent shareholder in Direx Limited, and the most prominent entity of the SoftSwiss group.[20][better source needed][21][unreliable source?] N1 Interactive is another trading corporation within SoftSwiss’ group of companies, through which SoftSwisss reportedly holds its Maltese gambling license.[22][citation needed][23][better source needed][24][better source needed]"

The main point: The author leaves many statements without citation, and in the proposed sources it is impossible to establish what the author is referring to.

III. Links to zines and webarchive.com

(g)"SoftSwiss has come under fire due to allegations of plagiarism by the Belarusian gambling company, VIADEN. [citation needed] This was reportedly likely the result of multiple employees leaving VIADEN to join SoftSwiss in the early 2010s, including its lead designer.[4][better source needed]"

The main point: The author makes a conclusion based on the interview, which is an insider's view of an event and may not be independent sources.

(h) The author makes references to arhived data here ana here.

The main point: The author makes a conclusion on archived data, which was removed for unknown reasons and which cannot be verified. My majesty's balls (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Miles Davis § Request for Comment - Religion. Elizium23 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Editingwiki777

This editor (Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is inserting synthesized original research into three articles, Eliphas Levi, The Book of Abramelin, and Chaos Magic. They have received multiple OR and edit-warring warnings is April, May, and this month, culminating in a level 4 warning. They have not responded to these notices or to queries on the article talk pages, they just keep reverting to restore "their" "criticism" section. Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That editor has only one edit, made back in 2010 and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Methinks you might want to double check that name, because Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a different user entirely. I'm digging through their contribs now, and reverting as needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact that they've never responded to warnings over the three months they've been hee, I've blocked them indefinitely. If they can show that they understand our policies and guidelines and demonstrate what they will do to follow them, they can be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY

Moved from Wikipedia talk:No original research

There was recently a discussion at Talk:New Game! about use of links to a publisher's website to verify release dates (in this case, Houbunsha and Seven Seas Entertainment, who publish the Japanese and English-language versions of this manga).

• User:Drmies removed the links, calling them "spam links", and quoted the part of this policy that says "it is easy to misuse them". He pointed out that they have links to sellers on the pages. Drmies also says "in my opinion, PRIMARY doesn't apply if half the references in an article are spam links".
• I quoted other parts, which say a primary source is fine to use so long as it "makes straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", an editor does not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material", and that the article is not "base[d] [entirely] on primary sources".
• User:Izno cites WP:EL, saying "[it] is clear on the matter: if it's being used for a citation, the rules regarding its removal or use fall under WP:V and WP:RS." Quote from that page: Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.

Drmies also argued that "if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article". I produced some reliable secondary sources on the talk page that also reported on the individual volume releases, but this line of argumentation gets away from the point about the publisher's websites also being admissible. I would like to solicit opinions on this concept of publisher's websites being inadmissible. — Goszei (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Goszei, that's a pretty accurate representation. I never took issue with the "straightforward etc." matter--and what that means, IMO, is that this talk page is not the best venue for this. It's not about OR; it's about when primary sources are better characterized as spam links. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate further on what separates an admissible primary source from a "spam link"? WP:REFSPAM says "Often [spam refs] are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also: consider if all of the release dates were contained on a single page on the publisher's website, which was then used as a primary source under this guideline. Would that also be a "spam link"? If not, it does not seem logical to draw a distinction here based on how many pages the usable and WP:PRIMARY–admissible information is spread out on. — Goszei (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another point that was not raised on that talk page is this passage in WP:PRIMARY: an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I will also highlight a quotation from WP:AFFILIATE: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page [...] in order to verify such things as titles and running times. — Goszei (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from the editor who started the discussion at Talk:New Game!: I think the use of primary sources in the manner the article is using them falls well within the bounds of WP:PRIMARY and related standards for the reasons outlined on that talk page. If it's ok to use a track listing from a record label, I don't see how release dates from a publisher is any worse. Link20XX (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Primary affiliated sources are normally given a pass, but if they are challenged then a secondary source must be provided. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE and potentially promotional. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Generally I would agree above with Guy, the only real dissent is that things like release/publication dates are a piece of information regarding any creative media you would expect to both see in an encyclopedia, and have sourced appropriately. I have zero issue with a primary source being used to reference a release date unless there is actually some reasonable suspicion to doubt it. That the page used as a reference also contains links to where you can get it is process wonkery for the sake of it. Unless its blatantly illegal/copyright etc, we dont refuse to use something as an online reference because its got other stuff we wouldnt put in the article on the same page. If its that much of an issue, convert it to an archive link and then going forward it will be historical. Its not like we are putting up to date pricing information like certain members of the medical article cabal wanted to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I wonder what a true secondary source (remember, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent) about a release date would look like. How does one combine multiple, previously published primary sources into a novel analysis of a release date? In other words: yes, it's perfectly fine to use non-independent primary sources for bare statements of uncontested routine facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Public Documentation

I may be way out of line here... but I think the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary should be amended to allow for verifiable government press releases and FOIA documentation as productive sources. By this definition currently under policy this would not allow for using historical materials from previous administrations held by the National Archives. This would include documents sent from Congress to the Library of Congress... as they would be original sources. My interests are academic sources and historical documents. I think that these should be able to be used. Please don't jump down my throat as I a relatively new but I would love to here thoughts and reasoning on this.

I think this also applies to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WikiLeaks

cc: @Szmenderowiecki: - What I will say about the Wikileaks situation is... can we verify the document through a second source or is it something where we could request it under FOIA or public information laws to verify. DoctorTexan (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Primary allows historical materials to be used as primary sources. For what purpose do you want to use a historical document that WP:Primary would prohibit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are allowed to use FOIA responses, Congressional testimony, executive orders, internal memos etc. per WP:Primary; we should only be careful to state exactly what the document says and not make WP:OR on it. Ideally, if there are secondary resources, these have priority over primary ones.

As for verification of WikiLeaks cables - I doubt they will answer that FOIA request if you send it to, say, Dept. of State because of "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) policy that is in place in most major Western countries when it comes to leaked documents. It isn't bound to change anytime soon, so we're out of luck here. The chance some researcher has verified the documents and published the results is also not too big, but if you find one who could confirm the authenticity of the cable, it will be wonderful. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A FOIA response is fine if it's stored in a reliable repository, held in a library, etc. But if the only copy is in a Wikipedia editor's drawer, that's not acceptable because it isn't published

@Jc3s5h: - So then I would ask you if it was stored at Commons would that qualify? DoctorTexan (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons is a wiki where anyone can put anything, and there is seldom any checking to verify that an item is what it purports to be. So a publication that is only available to the public from Commons would not be acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think something that should be stated or addressed here is when such material is DUE. DUE is often the problem with primary source material. For example, what someone said in court is going to be a public record. The question is if that content is DUE in an article. This is where a secondary source is needed. Where this is gray to me is where we as editors can fill in gaps. As an example: Mr Smith is making a public statement which is recorded in a primary source ("This development should go through because it will bring jobs to the area and will reduce crime"). A local paper (RS) says, without a quote, that Mr Smith said he would bring jobs to the area. To what extent can we use the primary source in the article (assume this is not an ABOUTSELF case)? I think most would agree we can cite the news paper and link to the primary source. Can we use the specific quote from the primary source if the secondary source doesn't use it? That part I'm not sure about. On one hand it can often provide better detail but is that detail UNDUE because the secondary source didn't mention it? This part I'm not sure about. Springee (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to @Springee. Even if you managed to use a source in a way that doesn't violate NOR, there's often a problem with WP:DUE. If no proper source talked about this, then why should it be in the Wikipedia article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember when a Canadian MP was reported in Hansard that he was a proponent of racial discrimination. The words were reported and the MP claimed that he had said "opponent" and it was incorrectly recorded. Note that if it had not been reported in the media, we would not have had the full story. Possibly the MP would then complain to Wikipedia and we would ask him to publish a response so that we could report it. We would then have to determine how credible his response was. Even if we merely reported Hansard and his response, we would be giving equal validity to the two versions. Also, journalistic ethics would require us to contact the MP before publication. That would turn Wikipedia into a news reporting service, which would conflict with its status as an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Citing my own photo of a memorial plaque

 Resolved

The article on Susannah Martin mentioned a memorial, with a transcription of the plaque (historical marker), with a "citation needed" tag. As it happens I was nearby, so I stopped and took photos, and published to Commons (memorial, plaque). I'm fairly confident this is not OR, since anyone can go there to Verify the inscription, or even look it up on Google Maps. This would would arguably be a Primary Source per WP:LINKSINACHAIN, but that's okay AFAIK. My question is, is this acceptable, and if so, how would I go about citing a photo I took? Should I just use {{cite AV media}} with the Commons URL? Is there a better way to approach this? Or does this break a guideline/policy/rule? I've been unable to find this situation treated in the WP: namespace or archives here; pointers welcome. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this is perfectly fine. It's the plaque that's being used as a source: not your own creative work. I'd use {{cite sign}}. pburka (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, {{cite sign}} seems like a perfect fit for this. Looks like I can put both my photo URL and the map URL in there, too. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this claim attributed to Rolling Stones mag pass WP:V

On the Andy Ngo article a statement has been added which claims a Rolling Stones article has supports the following claim, "Several sources have expressed a view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." About half way down the article RS says, "But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process."[[70]]? While it is clear the source is critical of Ngo the source does not say "Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"". Looking for input from others. The disputed article edit is here [[71]]. Springee (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, "several sources" refers to Rolling Stone and Jacobin which is also cited. –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however, I'm specifically asking if RStones supports the claim. Jacobin is a strongly opinionated source with limited weight. Even if they directly make the claim WEIGHT is still an issue. RStones would help with weight but only if the source supports the claim. Springee (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to make the claim more specific. Instead of "several sources", consider "Journalists such as E.J. Dickson (writing in Rolling Stone) and Arun Gupta (writing in Jacobin) have expressed the view that Ngo should not be considered a "journalist"." pburka (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the RStone source doesn't ever say he shouldn't be considered a journalist. That is a interpretation of some text from the article, not an accurate summary which is my concern. Springee (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I like pburka's suggested language, although I think we can take journalist out of quotes. I think the language is a fair paraphrase of the Rolling Stone line. Having read the article, it's not taken out of context either, the main point of the article is that Ngo is a huckster/troll/shit-stirrer (not my words) and not a journalist. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee - my reading of the quotes: But the issue wasn’t so much that Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. = "The incident showed Ngo to be a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, but this isn't the important thing here". It was that he’d managed to successfully convince so many ostensibly reasonable people otherwise, despite significant evidence to the contrary — and, in so doing, did some serious damage in the process. = "The important thing is that in spite of significant evidence that Ngo is a right-wing provocateur and not a journalist, Ngo had convinced so many of the opposite." In conclusion, it would be reasonable to write that "E.J. Dickson of Rolling Stone does not consider Ngo to be a journalist." starship.paint (exalt) 08:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Or, more specifically, "E. J. Dickson of Rolling Stone considers Ngo a "right-wing provocateur" rather than a journalist." XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• By directly attributing (as Pburka suggests), we better pass WP:V… but WP:V is not the only policy in play here. We must also consider WP:NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE). Does highlighting the views of E.J. Dickson and Arun Gupta give them undue weight? Do they represent a fringe or the mainstream? Remember that we are dealing with a BLP here, and so should be extra cautious. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Springee I'm not sure why you haven't pinged me given this was my point you reverted.Rolling Stone quote 1:Ngo had finally been “exposed” as a right-wing provocateur as opposed to a journalist. Rolling Stone quote 2: Even if Ngo himself were a fraudulent journalist, and the victim narrative he promoted was also under fraudulent pretenses, his ability to get bad ideas in front of a mainstream audience was all too real. In particular, the wording of as opposed to a journalist makes it clear the article is positing that Ngo should not be considered a journalist, but something else. It could be changed to "legitimate journalist" at a pinch. Btw, I've collated other sources' assessments' of Ngo on his talk page, partly to support the claim that Ngo's "frequently accused" of sharing misleading or selective material,[72] which Springee has rejected.[73] We're not talking about a single accusation-good sources remarking on Ngo's dishonesty or lack of credibility/integrity: CNN, Harvard academic Joan Donovan for MIT Technology Review, Salon (magazine) The Oregonian, Media Matters for America, BuzzFeed News, The Intercept, The Guardian, renowned public intellectual and Yale Professor Jason Stanley for the SPLC,, Columbia Journalism Review, plus[74][75], a report by Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism by four respected subject-matter experts plus another good quote from Rolling Stone. In fact, I haven't found many RS's that do treat Ngo as a credible journalist. Noteduck (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

does this settle it all for you Springee? Noteduck (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to restore the content no. I think the RStone part is still questionable but others feel it does pass wp:V. As Blueboar noted weight is still a problem. That Jacobin might think this is irrelevant since it is a weak source. Since RStone is the only other source you effectively have only one opinion of merit so leave it out as undue. As you said it's just one sentence so it shouldn't be a big deal right? Springee (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This seems to essentially be arguing the status quo "does no harm" which as per WP:SQS is not a strong line of argument Noteduck (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine article

There is a dispute that I want to bring here, rather than an edit war. Here is the discussion at the Talk Page. It had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.

From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify the some "gut feeling" that there is a scientific consensus. According to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.

I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks" or any kind of BS peripheral to the medical field. But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The gist is that a medicine/therapy which enjoys mainstream scientific validation is no longer alternative. E.g. artemisinin is not alt-med. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but that is still original, synthesized research and still a violation. There is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that implies that all of it falls outside the scientific method, and no scientific consensus. You cannot claim scientific consensus without supporting that, as I pointed out, which is why it should be reworded. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicines are, by definition, medicines that do not enjoy the support of the scientific consensus. To say that the scientific consensus is that they lack validation is not, in any way, WP:OR, and the actual OR I'm seeing here is the presumption that this argument rests upon: that the scientific community believes there is evidence for the efficacy of treatments for which they've been unable to find evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems with your argument: One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is). And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all? Why not just simply remove that statement? If a consensus about something is not possible, then there is no reason to mention a scientific consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But we do have a scientific consensus that artemisinin works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate and put this statement in context of this discussion for me? Thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, artemisinin was discovered through dabbling in alt-med. That's called the context of discovery. Having received the blessing of mainstream science, artemisinin is no longer alt-med. That's called the context of justification. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but if meditation is currently used as an adjunctive therapy (which it is) than it should no longer be defined as alternative medicine, by your definition, right? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the amount of scientific consensus decides that. Acupuncture is used as an adjunctive therapy, although the scientific consensus is against its effectiveness. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But that's just simply not true: "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded there is clear evidence that needle acupuncture treatment is effective for postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, nausea of pregnancy, and postoperative dental pain." Source. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. See Acupuncture. We use the best sources available, we do not use junk science sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The National Institutes of Health is a "junk science" source? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed yes, the bit that endorses junk science is normally unreliable for science related subjects. well known fact. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One is that there is no accepted definition of alternative medicine that would imply that they all exist outside of science (please show m if there is). Depending on what you mean by "exist outside of science" then you are either drastically misinterpreting what I said, or categorically ignorant of what alternative medicine even is. In any case, there is a perfectly good definition right there in the article in the very first sentence.

And second, if no scientific consenus is possible, then why have "scientific consensus" there at all? This makes absolutely no sense. The suggestion that because some claim does not represent a scientific consensus that there can be no scientific consensus is irrational in the extreme. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You mean the definition that has no citation and no source? Where is that definition from again? Please share with me. The rest of the article explains why defining alternative medicine isn't possible. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple. If there is a scientific consensus abut a topic, there should be evidence of that. If there is no accepted definition of "alternative medicine" in science, then there can be no consensus about it. If there is an accepted definition, then please show that to me. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments inside another editor's comments. That definition is not unsourced, but very well sourced, which you would see if you read the article. And there is reams of evidence for the scientific consensus, you're just refusing to accept it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, alternative medicine is medicines/therapies which are not supported by scientific evidence. It's called alternative to distinguish it from mainstream medicine, which is based upon scientific evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You said "based upon scientific evidence." Would you consider this statement to imply scientific evidence of acupuncture? "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded there is clear evidence that needle acupuncture treatment is effective for postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, nausea of pregnancy, and postoperative dental pain." Source.

That junk science source no longer reflects the best available evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The National Institutes of Health is a "junk science" source? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaronlife, Here's what we know about acupuncture:

• It doesn't matter where you put the needles
• It doesn't matter whether you insert them or not
• It only "works" on self-reported subjective symptoms that have a strong psychosomatic component (e.g. nausea)
• It is a hugely lucrative industry
• It was largely invented by Mao Zedong
• It is primarily supported by studies from China, which never find a negative result for anything, however self-evidently bogus

In short, it's a bust, and the continued cottage industry of small-scale "studies" by True Believers saying the same old things are precisely analogous to the last gasps of homeopathy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Is the National Institutes of Health a "junk science" source?

https://www.nccih.nih.gov/ is pro-quackery propaganda, institutionalized with taxpayers money. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask about the NCCIH. I asked about the NIH: "A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded..." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You have been warned of discretionary sanctions, so please behave. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you have no response to my question, then? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have replied enough. Further pointless WP:ADVOCACY is unwanted. We are not a website of apologetics. If you cannot serve Wikipedia, leave. This is not the place to WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Awfully convenient that right when when you lose the argument based on reason, that make these claims and ask me to leave. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, it is not a place for opinions. It is a place for science and facts, and I will always work to improve it. I welcome a response to the facts I last laid out. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for argument based on reason, we are not a debate championship. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What tgeorgescu said. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM : Anybody who think the NCCIH is a reliable source isn't long for this project. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The quote I pasted was from the NIH, NOT the NCCIH. The NIH is listed as a reliable medical source on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me tell you a secret about Wikipedia: we are all slaves on Jimbo's plantation. If you don't agree with the purposes of Wikipedia, made clear at WP:ARBPS, it is pointless to edit further. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. The flaw in your argument, and your failure to answer "Is the the NIH (not the NCCIH) a reliable source, and the statement about the consensus on accupuncture I provided from it, is all I need to know. I suggest you start a blog, rather than edit Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Here you are the troll. You are in no position to make demands. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making any demands. And I'm not a troll. You have devolved into ad hominem when you could not refute my argument. Let's go our separate ways. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:ADVOCACY contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. It does not matter if it is true or false, it is still unwanted POV-pushing. WP:IDHT. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you conceded that my statement was true. But pushing POV goes both ways and whether you like it or not, you're pushing a POV, too. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I'm pushing the POV of WP:GOODBIAS.

As I have stated on my user page, My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and WP:NOBIGOTS. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skeptic, History lesson time: The only reason that the statement wasn't released by the NCCIH is that body wasn't formed yet. That conference (and the statement it generated) was organized by the 'Office of Alternative Medicine' (OAM). Due to this conference and similar activities, the OAM got muzzled by the NIH higher ups. Senator Tom Harkin, noted booster of altmed, didn't like that much and had the OAM converted into an independent department which we now know as the NCCIH. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good info to have. Doesn't change anything for me, but is helpful. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, the "NIH Panel" we're talking about was in September 1997. That's pretty "old" and clearly subect to later changes for any topic that is either actively studied or statements going against mainstream belief. WP:MEDRS sets a 5-year window for being considered current medical information. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources used to justify the statements in the Alternative Medicine article go back further than than 5 years, but I'm not going to open that can of worms. As has been discussed above above, it doesn't matter what is true or not, apparently. And NPOV excludes "good" bias. I'm happy to leave it there. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that's a misunderstanding: WP:NPOV does not reject pro-mainstream science bias. WP:NPOV has a pro-mainstream science bias and an anti-acupuncture bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is why the language should be changed from "Good and unbiased research" because it's confusing to the average reader who thinks "unbiased" means actually unbiased, and not conditionally unbiased. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:DUE and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, read it yourself more carefully, because that’s not what NPOV says. WP:NPOV does not literally state nor advocate a “pro-mainstream science bias”. See “We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.” Portraying things incorrectly is to be avoided. One shouldn’t call a non-science view science nor a minority view portrayed as equal, but the NPOV also says these should not be called wrong. It is improper to portray that as a “pro-science bias”. By the name alone “Alternative” or CAM is clearly enough not mainstream, and saying ‘not mainstream’ is all that NPOV requires and all that it allows. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonperson

I recently removed a good chunk of the Nonperson article as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language. I had already removed another, highly dubious section in December 2018 about "ways to become". An "in popular culture" section was removed by someone else in July 2017.

I note that only one of the three references with a web link actually uses the term, and that the definition and "Legal status" sections are entirely unsourced; someone else will need to check the book. I haven't yet looked for other sources about the concept. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03 I’m not getting what you’re looking for here - what is the NOR question you have ? I do agree Nonperson has had the issues you mention, and “editorializing and presumptuous language”, and that sections were deleted. I’ll offer a couple thoughts. First, that a topic line at the top might mention with wikilink Personhood and that highlighting would raise the prominence of concept over editorial and also lead readers to that better article. Second thought is that “Legal status” might be a section where you could add factual content and so improve the proportion of facts over presumptuous language. There are fairly clear and citeable items defining categories ‘non-person’, ‘person’ and ‘citizen’ for example. (Such as a digital non-person entity.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

List of United States political families

This series of list articles needs some review. While looking for information on a particular historical figure named John Dunham (who emmigrated to Plymouth Colony in the 1600s), I found him briefly mentioned as being part of the Dunham political family. The problem is that he is NOT related to at least some of the others on that list. And while some of the other Dunhams MAY be related, there are no citations to verify the relationship. It may be that we simply have an extranious entry, or possibly a blending of two separate "Political families" with the same last name, or even a mix of the two. The point being, if this occurred with the Dunham "family", I suspect it has happined with other "families". A clean up, with an eye towards actually sourcing the "family" connection between individuals is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association

Not an expert in the subject area, but a sizeable proportion of this article seems to be original research. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy Doo Biography

A month ago, my edits of Scrappy were abruptly removed, citing original research. However, I feel this isn't the case.

to avoid original research, the main original research page says:

"The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication."

I fulfilled this to the best of my ability. I used the cartoons Scrappy appeared in since the purpose of fictional character Scrappy's biography is to show his role in the cartoons he appeared in.

First of all, while my main sources were the cartoons he appeared in, that is the best place to go. The 'biography' section, unless I'm mistaken, is to show what Scrappy did in the cartoons he appeared in. What better place than the cartoons themselves? I think that part of the issue was that I slacked in citing them thoroughly, but then the only issue was that not thorough in citing them, then I reasonably should be allowed to restore my edits with citations, should I not? The appropriate clips can be marked with timestamps.Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Scrappy-Doo (courtesy article link) Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For quick reference: Smcupcake19's version of the article, the revised version. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor is excluding a fair amount of reasoning posted to the talk page, including: COPYVIO of official episode summaries (3+ found), numerous unattributed copies from Wikia/Fandom (Predating the editor's insertion on Wikipedia by 2-3+ years), arguments of undue weight and NOT, that is, excessive content/fandom/fancruft, etc. The character article is not the suitable place to document in detail the plot of every episode the character appeared in. This would belong at best on a list of episodes for each TV series (Presuming the series are considered notable, though I'm fairly sure they likely are), and almost never to the degree as was done here. With uncertain degrees of copyvio mixed in, restoration should not occur, and any effort to build a new list of episodes requires re-summarization (For much reduced word count) and checking for copyvio/unattributed copying. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I only intended to bring the OR contention to the OR noticeboard. I did this on the advice of wikipedia's help chat. To make a long story very short, Ferret has leveled some vague accusations about me violating copyright. There was an issue months ago before I knew that using other's summaries wasn't allowed, but I have since rewritten them (the rewriting was also completed months ago) and am more then happy to do the same with any others that have been missed. Since there are 75 full-length ep's worth of content and over ahundred stories to be summarized, going with (3+ found) information which was obtained by I myself looked for when Ferret refused to elaborate on their own accusations (specifically what content was "lifted") As for the other commplaints, I repeat: A) I only wish to determine whether this violates Original Research Policy B) every other point I have responded to on Scrappy's talk page, here. Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

While primary sources can be used with great caution, they should be avoided whenever possible. I see that a Google Scholar search for "Scrappy Doo" turns up dozens of hits, suggesting that there's no shortage of reliable secondary sources you could use instead. I'd advise against trying to extract a biography for a fictional character from the cartoons themselves. While it might be possible to do this without engaging in OR, it would be very difficult to write more than a few sentences. pburka (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. But none of it (that I can see) is about Scrappy's cartoon history. I shall make a public draft of my summaries and polish them as fit. I hope someone will have the time to inspect them.Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources, it might be a hint that the information you want to include isn't sufficiently important to be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the world's knowledge. pburka (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pburka, my edits stood by for more than six months and as you can see by the edits, and no significant issues were taken by anybody. The trouble only started when a user abruptly yanked it all down for reasons that they should have at the very least attempted to flag for fixing.

"Of course, as Wikipedia is a wiki, its materials can be said to reflect readers' priorities, since anyone may add more information about their preferred subjects and become an editor." -Wikipedia:Fancruft

Scrappy was my priority-and as it said the implicit consensus appeared to be one of acceptance. Also, he is a relatively notable character.

Were they important enough? Well, I'm happy to say, I do believe they were-I was surprised and happy with this attention, and it only proves what I always believed-that my edits were neutral, noteworthy, and worthy of staying or at least refining.(I did tell the interviewer that they were ironclad, because, at that point, I believed they were-and I still believe it, which is why I'm continuing to argue in their favor)

I made a draft containing my old edits too, we should discuss that if anything. I'm adding references (I'm sure I can find secondary sources, but most of the ones on google scholar were not about Scrappy's cartoon biography). If we are going to discuss the edits in question, that is what you should look at.Smcupcake19 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

None of that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Extensive character biographies are not appropriate, as several editors have told you now. It's beginning to become disruptive. All of the information you have, which you are very clearly deeply interested in sharing, does have a home on the internet, but it isn't on Wikipedia. It’s on the Scooby Doo Fandom]. Extensive information about everything a character has ever done doesn't belong here. His article should be primarily about the character's development, appearances, and reception. Not everything that has ever happened to him—a professional approach to his history, not a fan-driven one. Please read the Manual of Style on writing about fiction. For example: "narration must employ out-of-universe style and include real-world descriptors. Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons, fictional settings should not be treated as a real place, and so forth." Your writing is in-universe and overly familiar. I'm really sorry because I see that you're deeply attached to this property, but Wikipedia isn't the place to share it. Fandom is. It will have readers there who appreciate it far more; that's what that service is intended for. Regarding what you said about it being there for so long, yes, it was, and it needed to be fixed. Consensus is established, in a soft way, by an article's state existing over a long period of time. That consensus was shattered when I removed large swathes of inappropriate information. The new consensus was established by multiple editors telling you the article's state was unacceptable. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, given this is the original research page, may I please get a more in-depth answer about why you believe that? (And IIRC someone actually reverted your deletion, which you completely ignored before I returned to the picture...so much for consensus.) Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: Am adding some secondary sources in the draft with the contested material.Smcupcake19 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been lingering for a while and I apologize for all delays. As I have, by and by, learned more of wikipedia's policies I feel that there are still some loose ends to tie up. At the heart of it, the issue was that it was uncited, fast-deleted for that, and then fast-deleted once more when I began citing primary sources. However, there is somewhat of a flaw in the arguments against it-we're talking about a work of fiction.

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for."

For WP:PRIMARYCARE

So that is the matter which can be addressed here. A work in need of citations. There are other arguments, like length and due weight and all that which have emerged, but this is what can be properly addressed here.

An article about a novel: The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book: Any educated person can read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth or that there are 61 chapters. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the book's style, themes, foreshadowing, symbolic meaning, values, importance, or other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: No one will find a direct statement of this material in the book.

An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.

I admit that neither of these are precisely TV shows, but they are close enough. It's true that there are other non-OR issues about the length and the bredth, but, unless I am mistaken this is the place to determine OR and whatnot.

Have a blessed day. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on OR policy

There was a question on a certain articles reliability due to its alleged source not having the indicated claim. If the original source is contacted and confirms that they did not make a claim published in a secondary source, is this a violation of the OR policy?155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this about a Wikipedia article (which is covered by WP:FAILV) or an external secondary source? Where is this discussion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Published interviews with editor who has COI, used to support OR?

At the Tree Shaping article one editor cites interviews with themself [76] to support text. This allowes the editor to continue to disparage my work (I who also have a COI). This editor uses interviews with the media to support what they want the page to say. Specifically Instant Tree Shaping and Gradual Tree Shaping [[77]]. These terms were added to the page [[78]] to define my work as "Instant Tree Shaping" and the editors own works as "Gradual Tree shaping". The page Tree Shaping, is in need of cleanup, citations need to be looked at. The page really needs more neutral editors, it's a wonderful interesting subject, please help. Slowart (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No ideas? let me put it in another way, would it be permissible add a section titled Instant Tree Shaping [[79]] to the article after speaking with a journalist and getting my new term published? Slowart (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Suicide

This has come up again with the death of Olivia Podmore‎ and I would like to seek guidance on this. New Zealand media is prevented from reporting on suicide, it always uses euphemisms such as "sudden death" and is made extremely obvious with the inclusion of suicide hotline information at the end of the article, but they can't actually say that someone had committed suicide. So my question is: does inferring suicide from these obvious giveaways constitute original research? --Pokelova (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Borderline… but I would say that it is Original Research. Look to see if there is coverage from non-NZ sources that might specify suicide. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with New Zealand's policies, but this page from the Ministry of Justice suggests that your description of the policy is inaccurate: "It may be reported, broadcast or posted on the internet that a death is a suspected suicide before the coroner releases their finding. If the coroner finds the person did commit suicide, the media and any member of the public can report, broadcast or post information that the death is a suicide." pburka (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You would have to be certain, such as if the style guide for the publication you were using said: In cases of suicide say "sudden death" and provide information about suicides on the page and don't do this unless you are certain it was a suicide. The issue however may be that the publication cannot be certain it was suicide, which is often the case. Also, since the person is only recently dead, WP:BLP applies, which requires careful citing of sources. Your best approach is to wait until the official cause of death has been determined and reported in the media. If this never happens, then the information is not important enough to include. TFD (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Priya Malik

Priya Malik has never won a gold medal at 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The page is full of false information as per latest version. Please help to rectify faults. 42.110.207.131 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

See proofs 42.110.207.131 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Resolved

2409:4061:48B:E180:B0B3:2D29:6F95:CA69 (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)