Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
  • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Susan Crean[edit]


(Couldn't find a WIKIPEDIA/SYNTH Noticeboard - I hope I'm in the right place ...?)

Article: Men's Rights

Source: Crean, Susan M. (1988). In the name of the fathers: the story behind child custody. Toronto: Amanita. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-921299-04-2.

Article section: // Child custody

Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. Men's rights activists argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in regards to child custody after divorce.[64][65][66] They believe that men do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse and use statistics on custody awards as evidence of judicial bias against men.[67] /..../

Critics argue that empirical research does not support the notion of judicial bias against men[64] and that men's rights advocates interpret statistics in a way that ignores the fact that the majority of men do not contest custody and *** do not seem to want it.[67] ***" //


It is the *** starry, starry *** sentence at the end of the quote that poses a problem.

Crean's book covers issues surrounding the introduction of new family law in Canada in 1988. However accurate Crean's description of the issues, events and attitudes one could observe in Ontario more than 25 years ago, it can provide only scant justification for a blanket statement that fathers today - everyone of them, everywhere - generally do not want custody of their children.

Proposed Edit

My opinion is that since the claim is unsupported, the claim must go; but perhaps there are other suggestions as to how one would best amend the article.

Desired feedback:

If there is a consensus that Crean's 1988 local investigation - however true it may be - is not a reliable source for a universal claim that fathers do not want custody of their children, there are two options: to be bold, and edit,

or to propose a change on the talk pages. I favour the latter, but it would be nice to hear an outside opinion on whether Crean, for the purposes of the _article claim_ (not the content of the book itself), can be considered a RS or not, whether the claim is SYNTH/OR or not - the mood at Men's Rights can easily degenerate into the partisan, so it won't do to fan any flames.

Previous discussion

I aired this on the talk pages in November 2013 (archive page 22, "On Fathers' Rights"), and I think that by now I have left ample time for disagreements to be voiced, of which there have been none since my last edit in that section on that topic.

T (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The operative question is whether the claim is in the source. If not, it should be removed entirely and immediately. If it is in the source, it is not original research. There may be other reasons to remove it, and it almost certainly should be qualified as an opinion of a particular person in a particular time and place. Rhoark (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thx for answering, and pls forgive me for claiming more attention, but could it be specified what "the claim" is? As per above, there are two claims: A) A majority of men in Ontario in 1988 did not want child custody, according to Crean; and B) A majority of men in general do not want child custody, according to editor interpretation of Crean on the Men's rights page. I do not contest A, but I do contest that A can reasonably be used as evidence for the much wider-in-scope claim B.
I would also feel fairly confident that even if Crean proposes B, that a claim about the state of affairs in Ontario 27 years ago is not sufficient support for the truth of that assertion today. The difference would be that if Crean does not state B, the entire claim can be removed; if Crean does state B, the section could be expanded to reflect the qualifications listed in the response above.
T (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"if Crean does not state B, the entire claim can be removed; if Crean does state B, the section could be expanded to reflect the qualifications" - all there is to it Rhoark (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. T 2001:4610:A:5E:0:0:0:16E1 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Please note that "T" has been trying to get RS removed since 2013. The perfectly reliable Crean source supports the statement 100 percent. The full quote is: The men's rights movement, which has taken up joint custody as the rallying cry for fathers of all persuasions. Taking the statistics on custody awards as incontrovertible evidence of judicial bias against men, they pay no heed to the fact that the vast majority of men do not contest custody and do not seem to want it. "T" needs to accept consensus and drop the stick. "T" is welcome to provide RS about the MRM that are more in line with his perceptions of the MRM. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Eliza Jane Scovill[edit]

Eliza Jane Scovill was a child who died of AIDS-like symptoms. The mother, who's an AIDS denialist, hired Mohammed Al Bayati to perform an autopsy. Al Bayati concluded that Eliza didn't die of AIDS, but something else. The dispute arises over whether Al Bayati's qualifications should be listed in the article. I think it violates OR, specifically Synthesis. In particular the qualifications being on the page implies that Al Bayati is not qualified to do the autopsy. Either the sources linked made this assertion (Al Bayati not qualified to do the autopsy) or they did not. If the sources did make the assertion, then the text is imperfect since it does not explicitly make the statement. If the sources did not make this assertion, then the text constitutes Synthesis. Against that Yobol thinks it provides vital context and should be included, and that there is nothing wrong with providing the facts for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Need help on this one. We've come to rather a dead end on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you have sources that are individually reliable for claims A and B
    • A, therefore B.
    • A because B.
    • A; however, B.
Not synthesis:
    • A. B.
    • A and B.
Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well that's the textbook definition. Yobol and I clearly disagree with that definition as applied to the article, which is why there's a dispute. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that the material in question falls under the "Not Synthesis" rubric above, it is clear that it is in fact not synthesis. Yobol (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted an RfC for this topic. Please see Talk:Eliza_Jane_Scovill#RfC. Banedon (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC related to the setting of a motion picture[edit]

I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film is set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City"). Another editor claims that only secondary sources should be cited.

In this particular case, all of the elements in the film itself clearly and overwhelmingly indicate New York City as the setting (see the RfC for details). However, the secondary sources (mostly film commentaries) are more confused. Some secondary sources mention off-hand that the film was set in New York; while others mention Chicago as the setting. The confusion is perhaps understandable, since the original Broadway play of Glengarry Glen Ross was set in Chicago.

I believe that in this context, direct reference to the primary source (the film) to settle the argument is allowable because the primary source is being used to cite a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The other editor disagrees, claiming that this would be original research and insists on using only the secondary sources. We have gotten to the point where we are arguing about the qualifications of the commentators in the secondary sources. To me it feels like we are arguing about whether it is raining outside, when we could just go and look out the window. Comments welcome. Xanthis (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Primary doesn't mean unreliable. Rhoark (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AJ Lee#In wrestling[edit]

The situation stems on me citing a song AJ Lee used in 2011 for the list of songs the subject used as an "entrance theme", or a song used while the subject walks out to before she performs. prefall (talk · contribs) reverted my edit and notes that the source I used had the song performed on it, but did not explicitly list the title or artist of the song. If I linked another source that plays the song and states what the artist and title is, would that count as WP:SYNTH? --wL<speak·check> 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Did the homelessness cause the deaths?[edit]

There is a dispute in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict regarding the issue of people (including babies) dying in the cold. We have discussed at the talk page but as we are stuck, I am asking here for comments. This is what I first inserted:

"As of 1 February 2015, only US$125 million of the $2.7 billion had been paid out, leaving tens of thousands of Gazans still homeless. At least four people (including three babies) were frozen to death in the cold."

It was sourced to this article in Swedish by Helsingborgs Dagblad. The following is a translation made by me about the two sentences regarding homeless Gazans and people dying in the cold:

This means that tens of thousands Gazans are still homeless, and at least four people, whereof three babies, have been frozen to death during the last month's winter cold.

UNRWA have also said this:

"This is a tremendous achievement; it is also wholly insufficient. It is easy to look at these numbers and lose sight of the fact that we are talking about thousands of families who continue to suffer through this cold winter with inadequate shelter. People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia," Turner added."

Monopoly31121993 and WarKosign have said that the claim is not supported by the source, with the first one saying "Neither of those quotes says what WarKosign has pointed out ("an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict") so it's still OR" and the second one saying, amongst other things, "As far as I can tell no source explicitly connects the freezing to death to the buildings being damaged in the fighting. They mention the damage and that some families remained homeless so is a very reasonable conclusion that a reader can draw, but I don't think it was ever stated explicitly that "an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict". They even mention infants dying in Lebanon, certainly it was not connected to the conflict".

I and The Magnificent Clean-keeper have said that the claim is supported by the source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: For the Nth time, I do not say that it's OR or SYNTH and do not object to including it.
I pointed that the source does not explicitly say that homelessness caused hypothermia, it is implied by the grouping of the sentences. The phrase that you added to the article does the same, so it is OK. WarKosign 18:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it was the best available venue to write in.
The source does say it's because the homelessness. It is not something I am interpreting myself but what they are stating. If you are not against the wording I used, that's good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your translation is a compound sentence that consists of two independent clauses: "This means that tens of thousands Gazans are still homeless." and "At least four people, whereof three babies, have been frozen to death during the last month's winter cold."
Turner's quote does the same: "People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia" - it is implied that the first part causes the second, but it is never stated explicitly. WarKosign 20:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear that they connect it to the homelessness and destruction of homes. Here is a statement by one from UNICEF: "Four infants died from complications caused by the bitter cold in Gaza in January: four-month-old Rahaf, one-month-old Adel, three-month-old Salma and 18-month-old Fadi. All were from families whose houses were destroyed during the last conflict and were living in extremely dire conditions". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's another example of the same - this source does not say explicitly that the destruction of the houses was the reason they died, it lets the reader draw this conclusion. WarKosign 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You can have a look here, compare Compounding Sentences ("one thing simply comes after another and the logical relationship between the ideas is not always evident or important") and Subordinating One Clause to Another ("subordinating one clause to another establishes a more complex relationship between ideas, showing that one idea depends on another in some way: a chronological development, a cause-and-effect relationship, a conditional relationship, etc."). WarKosign 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @WarKosign. Does your comment above mean you're within the consensus that the original content can be re-added? Just want to make clear I haven't misunderstood your statement.TMCk (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Magnificent Clean-keeper: I do not object to including the content above or any other content unless it adds explicit causality not present in the source.WarKosign 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
IRISZOOM, you forgot to mention the fact that I objected to quoting the Swedish source on EN Wikipedia but it doesn't matter if you're going to use Al Jazeera English's article. How about writing "In February 2015, Al Jazeera reported that four infants from families living in Gaza whose houses were destroyed during the war died from complications caused by cold whether in January." I think this is NPOV.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, also, I suggest everyone read that article. It's about how children has died because they got burned trying to keep warm (or more likely, since they were infants, someone else accidentally burned them). The objective folks at Al Jazeera sensationalized it by titling the article "Babies die in Gaza due to the resource siege" but no one actually says that and all the article discusses is how children have died from burns that they received as they tried to stay warm.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How dare you say something may not be Israel's fault. WarKosign 10:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And I have explained to you that it's acceptable to use a Swedish source, Monopoly31121993, so you were wrong on this. I don't know why you keep saying we can use other sources when this one is acceptable.
The official from UNICEF does say to Al Jazeera that the destruction of homes led later to complications they later died of. We also got other reports about such complications, such as an official from UNWRA. I repeat, there is no doubt we can use Helsingborgs Dagblad's report and the claim they made does not seem odd considering other reports similiar things. The quote in Al Jazeera can certainly be used but that does not mean we can't use the one from Helsingborgs Dagblad.
I see that you now have removed it again and replaced it with the report from AJ. Why did you later remove from your own edit that it was four infants and that complications caused by the cold was the reason? You replaced it with "died from fire accidents caused by improper heating". But UNICEF does not say so. Read the sentence above that quote: "Even as open fires and poor electrics pose a risk for displaced families, icy and damp conditions continue to claim young victims of hypothermia" and the quote by Catherine Weibel from UNICEF. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Sources in other languages are allowed, but English is preferable so as many editors as possible could review them. WarKosign 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
IRISZOOM , I used the source you gave here. What's the problem? And yes, I changed it after I actually had read it and realized it wasn't saying exactly what you claimed, it was saying something different.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: Look carefully, it supports the deaths of hypothermia as well. WarKosign 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you continue say that the claim is not there. Read my last answer here about the quote from a UNICEF official. They do talk about the cold. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this better represents what is in the source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If you google gaza babies dying cold you´ll find lots of sources, including this Ynet article, and this "A Palestinian infant fell ill and died due to severe cold in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday" "Her family reportedly continued living in their damaged home despite the destruction. " Huldra (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are many articles on that. I linked to that article by Ynetnews in the talk page. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Read the ynetnews article carefully. It doesn't imply any connection between damage to the buildings and the hypothermia; it is mentioned but the stated reasons for deaths are the extreme weather and lack of fuel for the power station. WarKosign 07:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Since this entire discussion relates to your reading of one edited quote from Al Jazeera I have simply added the exact quote and the name and title of the person who gave it to the article. It reads as follows: In late February 2015, Al Jazeera quoted Catherine Weibel, UNICEF's Communication Chief in Jerusalem, who said "Four infants died from complications caused by the bitter cold in Gaza in January... All were from families whose houses were destroyed during the last conflict and were living in extremely dire conditions."[1]Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
WarKosign, yes, some sources does not state it directly but those who have been in the article and others have done it.
Monopoly31121993, I think the wording I used match what the article in Al Jazeera says but if you want to use a quote, okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Synthesis" argument used to reject any mention of a common phrase[edit]

The dispute is regarding Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178. This is the "survivor's issue" which was (correctly, IMO) retitled to something more neutral.

The problem began with an editor who claims that absolutely no use of the phrase "survivor's issue" is to be permitted. I have pointed out that it has been used by a large number of reputable sources. (This point is not in dispute.) My original edit said "also known as the survivor's issue", but I was and am open to any rephrasing. I don't really care where the mention is in the article. The point is, a lot of people and sources are using this as a alternative title or synonym for issue No. 1178 and so it bears mentioning somewhere.

So, this dispute is NOT about: retitling the article, making any claims about the prevalence of the phrase "survivor's issue", inserting the phrase "survivor's issue" into any particular place or in any particular way, inserting any bias or emotional or original content into the article in any way, a particular fixation on preceding words such as "known as". (If there is a better way of prefacing that phrase--"unofficially known as", "sometimes known as", etc.--that is fine, but other editors involved in the dispute have not proposed any that they would deem acceptable.)

This is simply about being able to use a phrase that many reliable sources use in some fashion. ANY fashion.

The synthesis argument being used to argue against this: apparently, it's like like Simon Says. To use a phrase you have to find a source referring to another source using the phrase--otherwise, it's synthesis . It is not enough that multiple reliable sources are using a particular phrase to identify a particular thing--we must have a reliable source that identifies a reliable source that is identifying a particular thing with a particular phrase. In this particular case, the argument is that I can't say "also known as the survivor's issue" because no source contains that exact quote.

I believe this is absurd on its face.

First off, no one has suggested the need for a source that says the magazine in question "is known as issue No. 1178". Meta-sources are only required for certain things, it seems.

Also, Wikipedia is more than a collection of literally verbatim quotes from other sources. The prohibition on synthesis does not forbid all forms of paraphrasing or editing. If it did, all of the articles on the front page right now would have to be purged of at least 90% of their content.

Analogy: it is akin to removing the phrase "also known as salt" from the top of the sodium chloride page if it turned out all of the sources only directly referred to sodium chloride as salt (or vice versa) and did not contain a literal phrase along the lines of "...known as salt".

Synthesis is not a synonym for paraphrasing or summarizing. Synthesis should not and cannot be used to ban a widely used phrase from an article on the basis that no meta-source can be found that analyzes or comments on other sources' use of that phrase.

Am I wrong?

It only works in practice (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And let's be really, extra clear on something: there's a lot of text on the talk page about "generally" and "widely" that has muddied the issue. That's not the dispute, and that wasn't in my original edit. This is about banning any mention of the phrase "survivor's issue" on the sole basis that the sources don't appear to self-referentially talk about the usage of the term "survivor's issue". It only works in practice (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is one further point to consider: implicit labeling. If I point at something and say "ball", the very obvious implicit statement I am making is "that thing is known as a ball." Similarly, usage of the phrase "survivor's issue" when clearly referring to Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178 contains a very clear implicit "is known as (at least to me)".
However, regardless of this point and regardless of the article in question... I think the broader issue of what synthesis actually is (and isn't) needs to be addressed and clarified. It only works in practice (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, It only works in practice. Using the phrase "best known for" is something editors don't like in BLP articles. It's best to stick to facts. Provided you word your contribution carefully, you should be all right. This report from Thursday's "Daily Telegraph", published just across the English Channel from France, may be of interest.

Charlie Hebdo back on the streets

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo returned to newsstands yesterday with the words "We're back!" and a cartoon depicting the Pope, a jihadist and the French far - right leader Marine Le Pen as a pack of enraged animals.

The magazine took a break from weekly publishing after rushing out a "survivors' issue" a week after the Jan 7 jihadist attack on its Paris office in which 123 people were killed. The new issue is due to have a print run of 2.5 million and will be published as far afield as the United States. Before the attack the normal print run was 60,000. (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Calendar synthesis?[edit]

In this edit User: cites some early 20th century news stories and concludes "This is a paradox, since a church or country cannot change to the Gregorian calendar twice (unless it has stopped using it in the intervening period)." The editor also concludes "Where a source says that a church or country adopted a certain calendar it is not necessarily correct." I suggest these conclusions constitute synthesis. Furthermore, the sources are inappropriate; news stories are known to often be inaccurate and Wikipedia article should rely on secondary sources for events long past. Finally, instruction in how to use sources is not suitable material for a Wikipedia article, even if the instructions were correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with synthesis, which is conflating statements to make a claim which neither of the statements makes. Jc3s5h says we should use secondary sources - which newspapers are. Since he says newspapers are inaccurate, it is appropriate to use the primary sources. WP:RS says that "the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" and that the more checking is done of what is reported in secondary sources the better it will be. I have explained this in

For 12 years from 1700 Sweden used a modified Julian calendar, and adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1753.

The only way to confirm information regarding a change of calendar is to examine the relevant legislation. (See Gregorian calendar#Gregorian reform). An authoritative source[2] states that Russia changed on 31 January/14 February 1918 and Greece on 10/24 March 1924.

Areas of Russia not under Bolshevik control at the start of 1918 changed on different dates.[3] The date given for Greece is actually the date that the Greek Orthodox Church adopted the Revised Julian calendar. For civil purposes, Greece changed on 15 February/1 March 1923.[4]

In the twentieth century the Roman Breviary, the most authoritative source apart from the Papal Bull, stated that if the Epact is 25 and the Sunday Letter is C Easter Sunday is 25 April. It may still say that, and it is wrong. Some calendars are so alike that it is difficult to tell them apart. The Gregorian and Revised Julian dates are currently identical. For Muslims, the dates in the Turkish Islamic calendar, Umm - al - Qura calendar of Saudi Arabia and tabular Islamic calendar may be the same but they have different rules. There are a number of variations of the tabular calendar.

and Jc3s5h has raised no objection. (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Babies die in Gaza due to the resource siege". Al Jazeera. 24 February 2015. 
  2. ^ Nautical almanac offices of the United Kingdom and United States, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961), pp. 413 - 416.
  3. ^ See the summary at Toke Nørby, The Perpetual Calendar..
  4. ^ See Social Security Administration publication GN 00307.180 - Gregorian/Julian calendar.

Jc3s5h has tried this trick before. I removed a quote from an authoritative source that he had inserted into Gregorian calendar because mathematically the information could not be correct. Jc3s5h restored it because in his view if it was in a reliable source it should be included. I then had to ferret round for a source which said the information was incorrect before I could remove it again. That's the old "Verifiability not truth" canard which was thrown out years ago. To preserve our reputation we can and must warn readers that authoritative sources cannot be relied upon if that is the case. (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the disputed section "Adoption paradox" is not synthesis, but at the same time it's not really about the Gregorian calendar either - rather, the section discusses the accuracy of sources, an issue which is not limited to calendars. As such, it is not suitable for the article in question. Arcorann (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a sub - set of the whole. By definition, what is relevant to the whole is relevant to the sub - set also. (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
After rereading the disputed section, I retract my statement about the section not being synthesis. Arcorann (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously synthesis, because it is based upon a particular interpretation laid upon a set of newspaper reports. Simply from the excerpts provided it is unclear exactly what happened other than that the Turks went off the Islamic calendar and (eventually, perhaps immediately) adopted the Gregorian. After all that the point being argued is unclear. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph is absolutely synthesis - your definition is flawed. If reliable sources come to the same conclusion you do in that last paragraph, then cite them. Otherwise, the text is original research. In addition, you either or unknowledgable or wikilawyering when you stated in this diff that "The majority of editors have not said this is synthesis". Consensus is not based on vote counts, and no one supports your edit except you. Finally, I know you are evading, and you know you are evading. That you are obsessed with these articles is OK, if only you could follow WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:OR, and WP:RS. You are heading down the rabbit hole again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)