Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Yahwism#Torah appears to be OR

Unfortunately I can't see most of the sources, the couple that I can don't directly back the text. This looks more like an essay making an argument not directly made by the sources. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Aside from that, it looked to be POV in some places and cited the scriptural texts themselves (which also violates OR). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional input is needed

There's currently an editor who goes by the name of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz tagging a massive amount of sources in the article European emigration, here's a diff where the effect of his edits can be appreciated [1]. As can be seen in the article's edit history [2], other editors (Chule87 and John beta)[3][4] and me[5] have reverted him as we think his behavior and reasonings may be questionable but the editor reverts[6] and carries on. I've engaged him in the sources related to Mexico, as are the sources I have expertise on and I've found his arguments to be rather than those of an editor trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy, to be those of an editor incurring overreaching and incurring on WP:HEAR (and this may be the case for most of the other sources he is tagging). For example, he tags (and considers original research) a source that states that "nearly half of the surveyed Mexican population is White" under the argument that the source "does not state what the total population of Mexico was at the time" and that "it was conducted only in adults" disregarding that censuses and surveys are in the big majority of cases conducted only in adults [7]. I bring the case here as the editor himself suggested it in the article's talk page [8] so clearly additional input is going to be needed here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, Pob3qu3. I have expressed my concerns on the Talk page: Talk:European emigration, in some detail, and would ask that people take a look at my comments there, rather than me repeating them here.

My basic point is that although the infobox in the article gives specific population numbers for a variety of countries, with citations, when you go to those citations and search for those specific numbers, you don't find those numbers. That strikes me as "failed verification" - the reader can't find the cited numbers in the sources being cited. That's what I've been tagging, when I can't find the cited number in the article cited in support. If I've made a mistake in any of my searches, and an article does in fact give the number it is cited for, I hope other editors will draw it to my attention, and I will gladly acknowledge my mistake.

Other editors have said that they take percentages from those articles, multiply them against population numbers from other sources, and then put the results into the infobox. The problem is that that multiplication process is done by editors, without stating that they are doing so, and without giving any source for the population numbers that they are using. The bottom line is that the reader can't find the numbers given in the infobox in most of the articles cited. That seems a pretty clear case of Original research: Synthesis of published material and breach of Verifiability.

I also note, by way of comparison, that the article White Mexicans states that the population estimates for Mexico have a considerable variance: "Estimates range 11 million to 59 million". The number of 59 million is the one that triggered this disagreement on the European emigration page. While Wikipedia isn't a reliable source itself, that fact that a closely related article says that there is such variance is a factor to take into account in assessing the issue raised by this disagreement. It seems to suggest that there is not a consensus amongst experts on the population percentage, which gives a considerable variation in the estimates. Wikipedia editors don't get to choose which estimates are the best ones; when there is such marked variance in the base percentage, we should report that fact, as is done on the page for White Mexicans.

Finally, there are two countries which do give very clear numbers in official sources for populations of European descent: Canada and New Zealand. Those sources are cited in the infobox for those two countries. Those are the types of sources that are needed for the other countries, in my opinion.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like everyone here is acting in good faith, so that's a good start. It's true, as far as I know, that the source does need to explicitly state the figure, or else it is in fact failed verification. @Pob3qu3:, do you agree that the source should state the figure explicitly? There must be reliable sources for population estimates somewhere, right? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes Pyrrho the Skeptic, but I have to point out that this is not the issue here, the sources that explicitly back up figures are there, the core problem I have with Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is in diffs such as this one[9] he claims that those sources shouldn't be used because "they surveyed only people who are older than 18" "do not mention what the total population number of Mexico was at the time" and "the methodology used to perform that calculation is not mentioned" this is something that I consider is overreaching and unreasonable, and may constitute a case of WP:HEAR and WP:BLUESKY. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you on that point. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the methodology of the study. I'm challenging the methodology of the Wikipedia editors, who are using that study to extrapolate population figures not given in the study. That's the concern with synthesis and lack of verifiability.

First, with respect to the age range for the study: can it be properly applied to the Mexican population of all ages? I don't know. That seems to be a matter of statistical analysis and theory. That is my concern: taking a study that was designed for a specific age range, and applying it to the entire population, regardless of age. Where do Wikipedia editors get the statistical knowledge to say that is a valid extrapolation? That's not a comment on the methodology of the study; it's a concern with the methodology being used by the Wikipedia editors.

Second, another methodology concern with the Wikipedia editors is when they do their extrapolations from the data in the study. What population figures are the other editors using to carry out their extrapolations? We don't know. What is the source of those population figures? We don't know. Are those population figures reliable? We don't know. None of that information is included in the European emigration article. The figures that they produce by their multiplications are not verifiable, and the methodology they use to produce the numbers in the infobox is not given to the reader. I don't see that as "Bluesky"; population numbers change; statistical methodologies change; reliable sources change. Wikipedians don't get to do the stats; we report on the stats. For me, that is the basic problem of editorial synthesis, and lack of verifiability, contrary to the core principles of Wikipedia.

Third, if the numbers used by the other Wikipedia editors are "Bluesky", why does the article on White Mexicans give such a broad range of estimated population, from 11 million to 59 million? That strongly suggests that the experts in this area are in disagreement about the proportions within the population. How can Wikipedia editors choose one study, which produces the 59 million number by their extrapolations, and ignore the other studies, which produce the 11 million number? Again, that's my methodology concern - not with the methodology of the people who produce the studies, but the methodology of the Wikipedia editors who choose one study, and produce an estimated population of 59 million, but apparently ignore other statistical analyses, which produce an estimate of 11 million.

All of this goes to the bottom line question: how does the reader find the numbers, if they aren't reported in the cited source? Wikipedia will no longer be reporting on the stats; Wikipedia will be generating the stats. It would be a significant change to Wikipedia policy, in my opinion, if editors get to start producing their own stats (even with the best intentions) rather than just reporting on them. That's what turns the numbers in the infobox into original research. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

To put it another way: the editors who are producing these population stats are extrapolating from studies (using additional information which is not included in the WP article), but then cite to the studies. The reader is led to believe that the population numbers come from the studies. Actually, the population numbers come from Wikipedia editors, who cite to the studies in support of their extrapolations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, your insistence on questioning methodologies clearly meets the criterias of WP:HEAR and specially WP:LAWYERING, It's extremely easy to look up, on Wikipedia if you want, what the population of a given country is and calculate from there, this is clearly WP:BLUESKY, it seems as if you wanted the total population of every country to be sourced next to each estimate and you haven't stopped to think about how impractical that is. Your complaint about the age range in the Mexican survey qualifies as WP:HEAR and WP:LAWYERING aswell, as you selctively ignore that most if not all censuses and surveys made in the world are conducted in populations that are over 18 years of age, technically no source will ever meet the criteria for which you are trying to invalidate the sources for Mexico. Regarding the ranged estimate found in the article for White Mexicans, it must be taken into account that the sources that give the lower estimates are largely outdated and even directly refuted by newer research, such as this one, that in the page 9, note 1 directly refutes the World Facbook figures [10]. I haven't removed them myself despite being totally outdated by now because I thoguht keeping them would discourage edit warring, as that article is often targeted by throwaway accounts that want to change the numbers to the lowest end, but I have no problem with them being removed. I hope this seetles that matter, as to spread out the discussion makes it harder to follow for third parties. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "clearly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the "refutation" of the World Factbook figures is an article in a predatory journal, so not reliable/usable. In general I'd expect to see population figures reliably-sourced. Such figures are not "sky is blue" type truisms. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I've done some reading on types of journals and I found some disagreement about the status of Clut Journals [11] (although I'm aware Researchgate is not the best source, this is mostly anecdotical). I also have to note that the World Factbook itself has been found to be unreliable and outdated in and out of Wikipedia numerous times. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment This is a lot to read and think about, and I'll step away and let others comment, but my suggestion would be for one of you to (if necessary) take this to a Request for Comment, another relevant project page, or right here, but with a concise summary of the issue and see if it comes to consensus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I feel that this is original research. Extrapolating population counts from survey results is fraught with risks, and we should leave that to experts. Even combining a percentage from one source with a total population from another source is risky, as is showing population counts from different countries side-by-side if they come from different sources that might use different methodologies. pburka (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion, it's true that methodologies and standards differ from country to country, it's a shortcoming that articles who deal with ethnic groups as a whole face often. Taking that into consideration I suggested in the article's talk page to add a notice that made clear that this may be the case [12] but my suggestion was ignored and the discussion instead moved to the point that the editor Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is invalidating reliable sources for reasons such as the sources in question "stating percentages, not numbers"; "not stating what the total population of a given country was at the time" and "the source only surveying people who are over 18 years of age" as shown on this diffs [13][14], which are evident examples of WP:HEAR & WP:LAWYERING and is the reason the case in this noticeboard needed to be created, as the editor said that he was not gonna change his mind no matter what [15]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like we all agree that it's original research, and I don't think it's helpful or productive to criticize the other editor's approach to correcting that. If I understand correctly, your proposal is to add a warning and MSB thinks the OR should be removed. Removing the OR is the safest approach: even if you add a warning, it would still be OR, wouldn't it? If it's vitally important to the article, then I imagine that, with enough searching, you could find a reliable source that has already collated the data and could use their numbers instead. pburka (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources as you mention them are already there, the problem that led to the creation of this report is that the other editor wants to remove them under the arguments such as the source having "surveyed people that were over 18 years" this I believe is not OR but a case of WP:LAWYERING, given that no national cesus or survey will ever meet said criteria, all are made only on people who are over 18 years of age. The infobox notice is a separate issue. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll dismiss this as lawyering, too, but I stand by my conclusion that it's original research for a Wikipedia editor to take the results of a survey (regardless of the age group) and extrapolate that result to an entire population. pburka (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Even when the survey itself states to have nationwide representativeness and coverage? I in no way want to sound insistent, but the implications of this aproach do concern me. As under it any census, survey or field investigation on Wikipedia could be dismissed as an "extrapolation of results on an entire population" as on all of them an important percentage of the population choses to not answer. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We can report the results of the survey or census, as well as any extrapolations made by the researchers or other reliable sources. We can't make our own extrapolations. For example, Statistics Canada reports population demographics in absolute numbers. Presumably they made some adjustments based on known sampling biases and other best practices. We can report the results of their calculations without engaging in OR. But if we perform the same calculations ourselves it's OR. pburka (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating on your previous answer, as the way it was put seemed to suggest that any source could be invalidated, which is what MSB was going after. Just to clear this up, when a source says "75% of the population of X nation is Y ethnicity" and the total population of X nation is say 100,000 then it's ok to write it in numbers as 75,000 in sections where that is required right? Given that this is not an own calculation but an outright conversion from percentages to numbers, because the alternative, that would be to write an exact quote from a source in a numerical table would go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Combining numbers from multiple sources to extrapolate a third number that doesn't appear in any of the sources is almost always OR. pburka (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

1. pburka is right: any such combination is definitely original research.

2. The U.S. census, at least, counts everybody from newborns on up, and yes, the racial distributions are different for different age cohorts. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That was not the case here though, the issue was that MSB tried to invalidate sources with arguments such as "the source not stating what the total population of the country was"; "source uses percentages, not numbers so writing it on Wikipedia as a number is OR"; and "only people over 18 were surveyed" (Mike's reply is insightful, but MSB would invalidate it as the data about children doesn't come from asking children directly but from asking parents or would find any other reason to do so, in fact, the US census source was tagged too[16]) which by the looks of it we agree are an overreach. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The US census source ([17]) was used to support the claim that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States. I don't see that number anywhere in the cited source, so the tagging looks appropriate to me. pburka (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

But to simply convert those percentages to numbers (think of WP:BLUESKY), so they go in line with manual of style guidelines in places such as a numerical table does not constitute OR right? That's the core question of this case, that's what solves all of this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm worried that you think this is "simple" and as obvious as "the sky is blue". Here are some of the ways that could go wrong off the top of my head:

• Was the population data collected at the same time as the survey? If you apply ratios from 2010 to a 2020 census the extrapolation will be incorrect.
• Do the researchers and census collectors use a shared definition of "population"? One group might be counting citizens and the other residents. If they use different definitions the extrapolation will be incorrect.
• Is the survey representative of the whole population? If the researchers only polled certain groups, the extrapolation will be incorrect.
• Did the researchers correct for known polling biases? Some demographic groups are less likely to be reached by, e.g., telephone surveys. If not, the extrapolation will be incorrect.
• ... and many more ...

Polling is hard. Demographic analysis is hard. You can't dismiss them as BLUESKY. Even if you're an expert in the field, you can't do those calculations in your role as a Wikipedia editor. pburka (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

So for you, to write the percentage from a source as a number is wrong but just writing that percentage is ok, right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly. The big problem is using numbers from multiple sources to produce a derived number. If a single source said pandas eat 30 kg of biomass daily, 90% of which is bamboo, it would probably be a routine calculation to report that pandas eat 27 kilograms (60 lb) of bamboo every day. (And converting the units is ok, because that's completely unambiguous). But if one source says they eat 30 kg daily, and another says that 90% of the pandas' diet is bamboo, it would be WP:SYNTH to combine them to reach the same conclusion. pburka (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced regarding your criteria of what is synth (in this case for example, we would have a huge number of sources stating that the total daily consumption of food of a panda is 30kg. so BLUESKY could apply). But let's focus on what both of us agree, that is the fact that the statement "90% of a pandas diet is bamboo" is correct and more than situable for use on Wikipedia; and also the the fact that both procedings ultimately reach the same conclusion. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm not fond of seeing "But it's BLUESKY!" type arguments. The second someone raises an objection, it's clearly not covered by BLUESKY, as it apparently isn't obvious to everyone. At that point, if it really is an obvious claim, sources that support that should be plentiful and easily cited. If someone disputes that 2+2=4, it would not be at all hard to find sources to confirm that is in fact correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. And a reminder to everyone that, unlike WP:CALC, WP:BLUE is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Just like WP:NOTBLUE. pburka (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade. So my question here is, what do you think about writing in a numerical table that there are 204,300,000 people of European descent in the United States using this source [18], would it (and the concept of flat converting percentages to numbers in Wikipedia) be Synth or OR?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the term "European" anywhere in that source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nor does the number 204,300,000 appear on a search of that page. How would that comply with the Verifiability principle? A reader directed to that page who wants to check the number of 204,300,000 would not find it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Seraphimblade, so, prioritizing agreements over differences here: In the case of the US or Australia (which I bring up now for practicity, as US's sources often split Whites on non-Hispanic and Hispanic and that could spread out the discussion further), whose source uses only percentages as well[19], you think that it would be OR to convert that percentage to absolute numbers, but it would be correct to use said percentage as featured in the source right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are driving at. The census source gives no data on "European descent" population in the US at all. So yes, to extrapolate some "European descent" number from that would absolutely be SYNTH and/or OR. "White" does not necessarily mean "of European descent", nor would "non-white" mean the converse. A "white" individual could be of, for example, Russian descent, and a "non-white" person could have substantial European descent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me rephrase it a little bit Seraphimblade, the intent of my last question was to know your opinion in regards to writing said info into the article as it appears in source (particularly in the case of Australia which uses percentages and is currently absent of the aforementioned article). This is, I know you think that converting the percentages that appear in the source to absolute numbers is OR, but is it ok to write the percentages as it appears in the source on Wikipedia? For example: "Australia - 76%" instead of "Australia - 19,600,000" which is the way it was writen in the article before. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You are making no sense. The source you cited above was the United States census. That is completely irrelevant to Australia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I see where you apparently switched over to Australia. This constant "rephrasing" is beyond unhelpful. Ask in the form of "Should edit X be made to article Y on the basis of source Z?". If you want to avoid making a controversial edit to a live article, copy the article to your user space and make the proposed edit there, and then provide a diff of whatever edit you might want to make. You are, at this point, just talking around and confusing whatever it is you are trying to get at, so please actually nail it down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem Seraphimblade, MSB has answered my question, so all that's left is to discuss some minor adjustments, seems this will be settled in days time. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: Please review WP:CALC which is a Wikipedia policy page. It says "Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies." Census and survey results are statistics. You must not compare or combine them. pburka (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

pburka brings an interesting insight, albeit the negative impact that taking WP:CALC too literally would have in several charts of vastly different topics all over Wikipedia calls for a more careful consideration. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've not contributed for a few days because I wanted to see what other editors were thinking on this issue. However, I do want to correct some statements by Pob3qu3. I have absolutely no trouble with using numbers from official census results. They are reliable sources. If an official government census gives numbers about residents of European descent, Wikipedia can use them. They meet WP:Reliability. I made that point right at the beginning of this discussion, when I noted that Canada and New Zealand do provide those types of numbers in their censuses. Those are reliable sources and can be cited. My problem is when Wikipedia editors use a population number from some source other than the cited article, multiply that population number by a percentage from the cited article, and insert that extrapolated number into the Wikipedia article. That is Synthesis/OR, contrary to the Wikipedia policy cited by Pburka. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, that clears things up a little. Now, I have to ask, if your problem is that "Wikipedia editors use a population number from some source other than the cited article, multiply that population number by a percentage from the cited article..." then it's ok to use just the percentage from the cited source right? For example, re-adding Australia to the article as "Australia - 76%" instead of "Australia - 19,600,000" is ok as there's no longer any extrapolations being made, just cites from the sources right?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Assuming the source being cited meets the test for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and states a percentage number, then that percentage can be cited in a Wikipedia article. The Australian document is a joint production of several reputable bodies, including the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Business School of the University of Sydney, so in my opinion clearly meets the "Reliable Sources" requirement. When cited in a Wikipedia article, the cite should give a pinpoint reference to the exact page number or division in the source where the percentage is found, so the reader of the Wikipedia article can check it. That way, the particular citation meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And I note that the Australian source does not give the 76% figure, but instead says that 58% have Anglo-Celtic background and 18% have European (see p. 01). I see no problem with adding those two numbers together, consistent with WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age is almost always permissible." Since all of the numbers are in the same source, and are being used by that source to consider ethnic origins of Australians, it seems permissible to add those two sub-sets of people of European origin together. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your very well explained reply, it highlights our coincidences of thought. So, nearing the end of this discussion, as we agree it's a source that can be used on Wikipedia, any suggestion in regards to how to add Australia back to the infobox? to use percentages, numbers or something else? Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hitler: The Rise of Evil

Hitler: The Rise of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor persists in restoring a "Historical inaccuracies" section" (removed as policy violating five years ago) that is longer than the rest of the article combined without a single source actually criticising the historical inaccuracy of the show, instead relying on John Toland's biography of Hitler published in 1976, a mere 27 years before the show was on TV. Or a primary source document from 1933. That's on the rare occasions there are any sources cited at all.215 not out (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Meredith Greenfield

The place name in the article about Ballywalter Wind Farm is incorrect. Title of article uses Ballywalter, article uses Ballywater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edith Green (talk • contribs)

There is no article entitled "Ballywalter Wind Farm". It is entitled Ballywater Wind Farm, in both the title and body of the article. While sources on it appear rather thin, and I'm not sure it's ultimately notable to start with, I did find a few mentions which also use the spelling "Ballywater", so it would seem that is indeed the correct spelling. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Maps without citations

What is the policy on wikipedia when it comes to maps that are non-cited.

From my understanding, maps are acceptable when they have a source. This can include an interpretation of a textual description, which would not be original research. It could also be an original conversion or "translation" from a historical map or a map that has citations from a book, to a more legible digital form. This is particularly useful when the image being conveyed is more focused on general labels.

But in all those cases, you still need some sort of source or citation. But some maps have none. Now perhaps they are based off of data. But without the data being cited, how can we know?

And the way maps are depicted, particularly of historical areas, can be very misleading. Particularly when it comes to borders (which is why I appreciate when older maps of cultures have a blur effect on the edge rather than a solid line). This can further bias the difference between areas when one is depicted in their article as having a blurry border, while a comparable group in another article is depicted with a solid border, even though, during that era, borders were effectively just as malleable.

As two examples of maps I'm having issues with: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Egypt_and_Mesopotamia_c._1450_BC.png This map has no citations. On one page, it has a description, but it does not say whether or not the map is based off that description nor where that description came from, and that information is not located on the page for the image itself.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Drink_map_HRoe_2008.jpg That image has multiple issues, notably the writing within the image, but the primary issue I have with it is the lack of any source. Theres no way to know where the information from this image came from. And there is a LOT of elements within that image.

The problem is... if these maps are acceptable without citations, it can gravely distort what is being conveyed from what is actually known.

If they are not acceptable... well then wikipedia has an endemic issue with citations from my quick look at some of the other maps. As I said before, plenty of maps are fine, but tons would be unacceptable.

And, if they are not acceptable, I'm a little lost at how I should make such known. I could post about it on one of the pages that uses said image... but the issue is with the image itself and it's data. At the same time, I respect that its possible an image DOES have citations that were omitted, and it would be reasonable to give the author the ability to add that data. In the mean-time, would the image stay up? Or be taken down until sources are provided? And... how would I go about doing that when it comes to the image itself, not just the articles its used in?

Thanks!

I tend to agree that a map without a source (ie it could be totally made up) is not that helpful. But I think it's a local issue, ie it is content that can be challenged in just the same way as any other, V, NPOV, etc.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Maps are illustrations, and are governed by our rules for illustrations, not our rules for text. One issue is copyright. We often have to use a user generated map (as opposed to a published one) for copyright reasons.

This means that, while any illustration should accurately reflect what is stated in text, it is the text which requires a citation, not the illustration of that text.

Now, we can argue that a specific map does not accurately reflect the cited text, or that some other map would better illustrate it - just as we might argue that a different photo might better illustrate what is mentioned in the article’s text - but that is an article design issue, not a citation issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand that aspect, but should the map itself not cite the text? I'm not saying a map can't be based off a text. I'm just saying there should be a citation when you click on the map that refers to the text. There still needs to be some form of citation... right? Otherwise, there is no way to know if a map is made arbitrarily or refers to no text at all!GalacticKiss (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you say the same for (for example) the photographs used to illustrate our article on lancet windows? If not, why not?

We don’t require (or expect) citations for the thousands of photographs used to illustrate our articles. So why should we treat maps differently from these photographs? Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, its rather funny you picked a photo that actually uses a source, a guide book. Second, in some ways... is that also not an issue? Particularly when it comes to more controversial subjects like history? The fact it is not required for those other photos doesn't necessarily make such a lack of requirement justified. Third, a map is not an 'example' of something which has admitted variation. You don't look at a map of california: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#/media/File:California_economic_regions_map_(labeled_and_colored).svg and believe there are many californias, of which this is only one and the minute details may not necessarily be accurate for all of them. You believe that, as best we know, it's an accurate representation or perhaps an accurate representation of what people thought or percieved things to be like for that specific instance. A picture of a henge doesn't need a citation because when you look at the picture of a henge, it is not all henges and there is not only one henge. Pictures of individuals is an inbetween but in cases where things are more controversial, such as historical figures, you would not be fine with someone's personal contemporary painting of that person, would you? Could I paint a picture of someone for whom there is no wiki image and post it for their wiki? GalacticKiss (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you CAN draw a picture, upload it to commons, and use it in an article (for example, we used a series of user created drawings at our article on Susan Boyle until we were able to find a photo that was released into public domain). I would say a photo is usually better, but one is not always available. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be a terrible artist though lol... But how would you know what a historical figure looked like? If the person doesn't post the citation to the description they are making the image based off of... they could just make it up. Theoretically (and I cannot stress that this is a theoretical proposition and I have no intention of ever harming wiki. I Love this place) I can go find a historical figure, probably some minor one, and submit a mediocre image I made based on nothing, and it would be accepted? Shouldn't we stop that from happening? Or, in the case of the above linked images... just color in a bigger area for a historical civilization and submit the image. I could do such for propaganda reasons, or perhaps it has already been done indirectly through historical bias. In particular, it would be worthwhile to check the citations for these images to see if there are possible biases within their descriptions which might be affecting how we draw the maps of the time periods. It could be perfectly accurate! But it could also not be. But theres no way to check unless we know the source. Disputes over maps and how we view history is a known thing people will alter, on purpose, to suit their views independent of what any sources say. Its just ripe for abuse, both direct and indirect.GalacticKiss (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres for arguments about maps:) Selfstudier (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I must say that the discussions over there are fascinating! But the presumption of having sources is a given. Right? Within my first post I gave two map examples that have no sources. Unless there are sources. Should they not be removed? The default should not be unknown maps, but the lack of a map entirely. It may make the pages look less interesting but thats a short term problem as alternative interesting images can be found or a map with a citation can be put there.

My objection to these maps has nothing to do with any particular elements on them. I have zero knowledge of their accuracy nor do I find them particularly likely to be inaccurate. I have no clue. And when wanting to learn more about where these maps came from, I clicked to the images to find a source. I did not find any, which is concerning to me. I just think it an unreasonable presumption of honesty, accuracy, or having as an objective a view as possible, to allow maps to exist unsourced until a replacement is found. Even if no replacement is ever found, that is itself a more accurate portrayal of our understanding. GalacticKiss (talk) 4:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes a self-drawn map needs a reliable source as a base/citation to be used. Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes in the I/P area (or any other disputed territory) should realise why this is required. Territory boundaries are/give the impression of statements of fact and need sourcing appropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree. I've notified the author of the 2008 map, who is definitely a good faith editor. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Just so I know for the future, where/how would be the best way to get them corrected? I only ask because on articles related to Mesopotamia, in my search for understanding the source of maps and their relationship to the archeological record, I've already come across two more maps that are in use without sources.

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spread_of_Oecumene_Mesopotamia.jpg Only gives a source of "from documentary sources" and as a fan of maps, I'd love to update it, but without a source, thats not possible.

There is also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mesopotamia_6000-4500.png Which is used on the History of Mesopotamia page, and while it looks very professional and trustworthy, and has multiple derivative maps created through it, but in none of them could I find a source.

Should I message the author first? And then if there is no response? Or perhaps there is another method? --GalacticKiss (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• This two maps are OR and they should not be part of Wikpedia. If the map does not have a source on which it is based, then anything can be drawn on it. Wikipedia is mostly read by amateurs and not by people who know how to recognize if that maps are okay or not ie whether everything is within some geographical boundaries or not. Mikola22 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka

The article Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, seems to be a list of individual incidents. Although backed up by some reliable sources, the whole article seems to be an original research with primary sources and not an encyclopedic article in nature. The talk page indicates editors with strong opinions of a biases nature engaged in heated debate. Therefore it is best that an unaffiliated editor, do a clean up of the article. Cossde (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The above editor is involved in making several recent contentious edits on Sri Lankan Civil war articles, and is not a neutral observer of this topic. That article is supported by multiple reliable sources, human rights groups, news reports etc. Calling it 'original research' is nonsense. Please be wary that there has been a past attempt to completely remove the article by another user (now banned) who wanted to delete all mention of atrocities committed by Sri Lanka security forces. Oz346 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Reply: As I mentioned, editors with strong opinions of a biases nature have been engaged in heated debate in the talk page, hence for my request for a rewrite of this article by unaffiliated/neutral editors to bring it up to the level of an encyclopedic article and not a list of OR. Cossde (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Mean Center of the United States Population

I am hereby asking for advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 estimated US population centroid (center) calculation. My contention is that, since the source of my estimation is a conceptually simple calculation involving only the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, it should be allowed under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculations" "Basic Arithmetic" clause, thereby exempting it from Wikipedia's "Original Research" prohibition. Only six basic calculations per state are needed to generate the centroid estimate.

I believe that my annual estimated and projected centroid cacluations have added significant value to this Wikipedia page over the last decade. These calculations have offered a unique real-time summary of the changing settlement patterns in the United States over the years, and have gained acceptance from various researchers. The veracity of my method was first confirmed by comparison of my 2010 predicted centroid to the US Census Bureau's official centroid calculation in 2010. I believe it will almost certainly be re-confirmed once the Bureau releases its centroid calculation for 2020 in coming weeks.

With this message I hope to elicit advice and support to allow for the publication of my 2020 US population centroid calculated estimate, as well as subsequent annual calculated estimates and projections.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter! Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Long answer, still no. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of original research. And your assertion, that such a centroid, calculated in the manner you suggest, is a valid means to arrive at a meaningful estimate, certainly constitutes original research, given that you claim it gives 'unique' results. It may well do, but that doesn't give your method of arriving at them any particular credibility. If the U.S. Census Bureau is about to publish its own calculations, we can use them. I doubt that the centroid will have moved much in a few weeks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, the "unique" nature of my centroid calculation is primarily because of its frequency. I'm able to produce estimates and projections on an annual basis upon release of the US Census Bureau's state population estimates. In contrast, the Bureau calculates the US population centroid only on a decennial periodicity. So the value of my estimates and projections are at their greatest and most interesting between censuses, and less so on the run-up to official Bureau releases. It is those calculations that I wish to see published in Wikipedia in coming years for the benefit of interested parties. Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply isn't a publisher of original thought. You will need to get these estimates and projections published somewhere else first. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Wikipedia Mean center of the United States population starts by stating that the center is "determined by the United States Census Bureau". By them. Not by anyone else. Clearly this isn't an absolutely defined point in space (which would require knowledge of the precise location of each individual in the population), but instead an approximation, arrived at by making assumptions and simplifications. Even so, from the description given by the Census Bureau [20] (and linked in our article), they are working with much more finely-grained data than the 'six basic calculations per state' Alex.zakrewsky specifies, and as such, Alex's calculations are unlikely to give exactly the same result. One could of course argue that Alex's calculations are sufficient to arrive at a close enough result, and that the differences are likely to be small, in a context where either result is an approximation, but that doesn't alter the fact that the methods used by Alex aren't the Census Bureau's so accordingly don't belong in an article stating that the Bureau is the source of the data. If and when Alex's calculations ever get the sort of recognition which would justify inclusion in a Wikipedia article, said article would have to be revised, noting each source, and explaining any differences. For now though, they are unpublished original research, and excluded by policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed that any entity other than the US Census Bureau determines the population centroid. You are correct that the US Census Bureau is working with an enormously larger and more detailed data set and a different method to reach their determination. My much simpler method was never meant to be anything but an approximation for intercensal years and an approximated projection for the next census year, thus giving a preview of changing settlement patterns in the United States. Judging from past performance, I expect my 2020 estimate to be about a mile or two from the Census Bureau's determination, a "close-enough" approximation for understanding settlement trends on the scale of the US. My calculation was meant to be a service to those curious as to where and when the centroid was heading next, and nothing more. An overly strict interpretation of what falls under Wikipedia's "Routine Calculation" exclusion of prohibited "Original Research" policy deprives Wikipedia readers their satisfaction of knowing about where the centroid goes next. Alex.zakrewsky (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is useful and probably an excellent approximation/forecast of the Census Bureau's results, but it's also clearly original research. It would be great to host this on a personal website or github, but not Wikipedia. pburka (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

'Routine calculations', as permitted under Wikipedia policy, don't involve contributors creating their own methods to arrive at approximations to data provided elsewhere. And nor do they need citations, since it is assumed (or should be) that such calculations can be carried out by any reasonably mathematically literate contributor, based solely on sources cited in the relevant article, and can be checked independently by any other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nelson Diversity Surveys

Does anyone have any thoughts on Nelson Diversity Surveys? The article is poorly sourced and it looks like there's COI editing involved, and I wonder if the majority of the article is actually based on insider knowledge? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The COI about hits you over the head with a sledgehammer there, and this may have been a better fit at WP:COIN given that. That said, I've cleaned up some of the more egregious stuff, though a lot more would need to be done. I'm honestly not sure if it's notable to begin with, but I suspect that will become clearer once the fluff is all trimmed away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Seraphimblade. Yes, I did consider reporting this at COIN and would have reported it at the notability noticeboard if it existed! I might still do the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Computer-generated image as OR

Additional input is requested at Talk:Welsh_Not#Request_for_comment_on_including_a_computer-generated_image as to whether the image in question is OR. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

This page begins with a list of tables with no refs. Then it goes into a whole bunch of subsections about the universities and then almost every university listed there's a note that the university's official count is lower than the article's count. Each university's table has a notes section where there is an explanation of why a particular university's affiliate is excluded from the list. This list seems to be heavy on WP:SYNTH if not outright Wikipedia:No original research. Strangely, the article also links Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. OCNative (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be the exact same kind of concerns that led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders (2nd nomination), or other similar lists. Nominated for deletion, and I've copied your statement there, since it is quite accurate (and for transparency). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm returning here to try to raise attention to this page because it was so badly damaged by original research that it was nominated for deletion by RandomCanadian as noted above, deleted, and then restored via deletion review. Regardless, it still has serious WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR that need to be resolved. OCNative (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• When it comes to lists like this is, has any other reliable source (including tertiary reference works) ever considered this type of organization of the awards in this manner? When we start creating lists based on a criteria that we are making up, that's original research in of itself and a problem. But if it can be shown that there's interest in how many Laurates came from which schools from other sources, then that core issue on the list OR is solved, though on how affiliates are grouped becomes a question -- though here, that's why looking to how these other RSes group them should help. --Masem (t) 01:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem: it seems the nobel website itself keeps such a list[21], although it is a WP:PRIMARY source. This topic is also covered by Forbes[22] but in a different format.VR _talk 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  That Forbes site is not reliable (its a contributor piece), but I think that since the Nobels themselves have that organization, then the OR issue on the list itself is not an issue. That the Nobels appear to group schools under the top level university and ignore affiliates should be what guides our list then. The only thing I would suggest is that the ordering on the page is a bit POV-ish, and the order should be simply alphabetical by school (ala the Nobel list). A table at the bottom to give count by school, similar to how 73rd_Primetime_Emmy_Awards#Most_major_wins summarizes those awards, would be better and "future proof". --Masem (t) 02:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  My mistake, just saw WP:FORBESCON.VR _talk 02:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this particular page (which I haven't even looked at) but I want to comment on the argument that some reliable source must have used this criterion for making a list. All our articles are constructed by putting together information from multiple sources. Provided all the information is supported by reliable sources, simply listing it is not an OR/SYNTH problem. Remember that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. We only break OR/SYNTH if we draw our own conclusions from the combined information that no reliable source draws (making allowance for WP:CALC). In some cases there may be an OR issue in deciding whether a particular item belongs on the list, but that is no different from any decision whether to include something in an article. Zero^talk 03:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: then in your opinion how do we decide if a particular listing is legitimate? I like WP:NLIST's criterion of "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".VR _talk 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: What is "legitimate"? I only commented on the issue of when a list violates OR/SYNTH and I didn't mention notability at all. Even the most policy-compliant articles get deleted if they fail notability. Zero^talk 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymology section of Yoruba people page seems to be OR

There is an RFC on the above subject, which seems to be synthesis of published materials, possible violation of OR, by Oluwatalisman. Link provided here.[[23]].
A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link [[24]]Ppdallo (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up Here -Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A 13 point explanation as to why a HRW article says what I claim it does (HRW regarding BDS)

I've been in long discussions with Nishidani over what I feel is a total misrepresentation of a HRW article in the Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions page's lead and we've been unable to come to an agreement. Here's the most relevant text in the article, vs his current text:

• "Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign" [25]
• "Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear."

In the most recent talk section regarding our disagreement, Nishidani lists out 13 different things[26] said in the article and claims that proves his point.

• "The unambiguous meaning of this in context is that (a) BDS is not antisemitic and to assert it constitutes maligning..."

To me, this is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTH. The 13 point list was created because there's no clear or explicit link between two distinct things. Making guesses based on "context" is not the same as a source explicitly stating something:

• "...do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." (synth)

He has disputed that he's engaged in OR and says he's just "paraphrasing". If this was just a technicality I wouldn't argue strongly against it, but I personally think his interpretation severely distorts HRW's view.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not me. Two other editors agree my paraphrase is fair. Bob is alone in challenging it. The details are on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think I've got the gist of the complaint. I think that Goldstein's position is being described fairly, but it would be better if the wording were closer to his actual words to avoid this kind of dispute. I agree with Firefangledfeathers's suggestion on the talk page to use a direct quote, if possible. pburka (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a lead sentence, and I had to balance 53 words for the accusation that BDS is anti-Semitic, with 12 words that it wasn't. Since three sources were used for the former, using three sources, one of which was Goldstein's, meant I had to use terse paraphrase. As it must assume summary form, that was the restriction, and the relevant section then expanded it more completely, with a direct quote. Were I to put that direct quote into the lead, it would strain the NPOV balance and look WP:Undue. These are tricky problems, of course. Thanks for the input.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pburka: It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"? Does anyone object to that? In terms of fairness, I've been saying from the beginning that the text needs some sort of qualification. The article uses language like "SPURIOUS allegations" and "not INHERENTLY anti-semitic". The text must reflect that.

I don't see any value in adding the word "smear" which does not exist in the article, and just adds a fairly loaded word into the lead. According to dictionary.com the two words are not synonymous. There are some pretty big jumps from "government actions malign" to "change of antisemitism [is] a smear". The maligning is almost a side note in the article. The only reason to push for it's inclusion seems be POV reasons.

IMO the basics of the article seems to simply say this: "HRW rejects BDS being labelled as inherently antisemitic"" and that's based on this quote: "Pompeo did more than tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As exhaustively explained elsewhere, the source deals in a specific, and a general issue. The specific case is BDS, for which what it says about BDS is paraphrased.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Let "as inherently antisemitic" = X. Pompeo did X+. Your expression, HRW rejects X. Nope, HRW rejects X+, not just X.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is your "paraphrasing" (or WP:SYNTH) seems to exclude things you don't like, and words like "inherently" and "spurious" have meaning. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Non sequitur. What point are you making now? Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Here's the transformation of the text Nishidani seems to make:

1) "Pompeo did more than tar BDS as inherently anti-Semitic"

2) "Pompeo calling BDS inherently anti-semitic is a smear"

3) "... calling BDS anti-semitic is a smear"

What word is missing in that last version? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

---

OR has nothing to do with being fair. Don't move the goalposts.Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)(Edit:this was a response to the sentence above beginning "It seems like we've expanded the scope of this discussion from WP:SYNTH to what's "fair"?]Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a problem. Nishidani absolutely rejected a request for getting input in DSN request. That would have been the right place for it. He insisted that it got relocated here. And it was Pburka who first spoke about what's "fair". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The closer at Dispute resolution also gave you some advice, I think. Nishidani was entitled to decline and you are entitled to use whatever process you would like to use, if it's not really OR why did you file it here?Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I did so at Nishidani's suggestions, and what are the alternatives? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You alleged OR so that's why here was suggested but if your complaint is actually something else or includes other things besides, then you can go to ANI (You've already been there so you know how that works) or AE for Arbpia enforcement, although if you go there you need to be very clear about your complaint. Discussion will not be permitted to wander everywhere and diffs are required for everything.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Map in Language section of Yoruba people article seems to be OR

Additional input requested on above subject concerning a map which seems to violate OR. The map was by Oramfe and Oluwatalisman and can be found through link provided here.[[27]]. A brief summary of discussions on the subject can be found through the link.[[28]] and goes under the heading "Re:RfC on Degree of Presence of The Yoruba and 'Yoruba derived' groups in Nigeria, Benin & Togo at Sub-national levels/Yorubas of Northern Benin sections of talk page". Thank you Ppdallo (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up Here -Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD: Abadir dynasty

There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Montell 74

User:Montell 74 has been here since 2009, and has since then made more than 80,000 edits to the mainspace. It seems though that many, way too many of these are WP:OR. I have tried to discuss this with the editor at their user talk page (User talk:Montell 74#All-time best 25), but to no avail. Can some people please take a look and try to get them to change their approach (or tell me I'm wrong, and why, of course). The result of their edits[29] is that we have e.g. a section on the "All-time top 25: Men short course" which lists the 14th best ever, and the 16th best ever, but not the 15th best ever: no source is given that actually places Johannes Skagius as the 16th best ever, it is what Montell 74 believes tobe the 16th best ever, based on, well, no idea on what: a lot of hard work and record collecting, but no actual reliable sources. This is not a one-off incident: at World record progression 50 metres butterfly, we get an equally strange list for the mens short course all time best, with unexplained gaps and positions. Which of course makes me wonder whether the long course list, which hasn't any gaps, is really correct. Perhaps it is, who knows? The short course list certainly isn't, as it now lists #3 Dressel 22.04, and #4 Cieslak 22.08, even though Oleg Kostin holds the Russian record with 22.07. Then there is one spot free between the 2.08 of Cieslak and the 22.18 of Leveaux, even though Florent Manaudou has 22.09, and Vladimir Morozov has 22.17. Is then at least the top 3 correct? No, e.g. Szebasztián Szabó has twice swum a 21.86. So this whole list is clearly incorrect WP:OR.

Their article creations (which caused them to attract my attention) aren't really any better: recent ones include the completely unsourced Masters W55 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression (which at least seems to be correct though), or the similarly unsourced Masters W60 hammer throw world record progression: both entries were world records, but any evidence that the recent one actually broke the 20 year old record and nothing happened inbetween?

Any help to get this editor to change their approach to editing and sourcing is appreciated. Fram (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

World number 1 ranked male tennis players and World number 1 ranked female tennis players

I'm starting this discussion because I have grave concerns there are considerable policy violations in these articles. These articles purportedly list all the players in the history of competitive tennis who were "number one on the world ranking" every year. The problem is though that no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women, yet the articles list numbers one on the world ranking for decades before that. My biggest concern is that these "number one on the world ranking" players, and especially the purported consensi that they are as mainly claimed in the men's article, are being assessed by wikipedia editors through synthesizing the sources. That's why I came here to request assistance from outside editors.Tvx1 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: If no official world rankings existed prior to 1973 for men and 1975 for women then everything before that is WP:OR and should not be in the article. However I do not know which sources speak of an earlier time and since you mentioned synthesis I guess those tennis players are listed as the best players for the specific season ie year. And it was probably entered into the article by some editorial consensus. But in fact it is OR because sources which mention "number one on the world ranking" as you say the not exist. I took a look at the article and explanation in the section "Between 1913 and 1973: opinion-based worldwide rankings and professional tournament series point rankings" and here exist only one source, which is a little strange for so much information's which exist here. Mikola22 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Dervish, a Dhulbahante Sultanate

For a few months now there has been a debate between myself and users Dabaqabad and Jacob300 over a few pages on whether the the Darwiish State was a Dhulbahante sultanate; I attempted a talk page discussion at 1 and somewhere else I don't recall. As such, I need a 3rd opinion on whether the following quote from the Dervish proclamation of independence letter to James Hayes Sadler indicates that Dervishes on 3rd May 1899 defined themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate (viewable source):

This letter is sent by all the Dervishes, the Amir, and all the Dolbahanta to the Ruler of Berbera ... We are a Government, we have a Sultan, an Amir, and Chiefs, and subjects.

The above is quoted by Mohamed Osman Omar from the UK National Archives record.

Possibly relevant quote from 4th May 1899 reply letter by James Hayes Sadler to a 3rd party
“In his last letter the Mullah pretends to speak in the name of the Dervishes, their Amir (himself), and the Dolbahanta tribes. This letter shows his object is to establish himself as the Ruler of the Dolbahanta, and it has a Mahdist look"

So is my reading correct that the Dervishes described themselves as a Dhulbahante sultanate in the 3 May 1899 letter? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Race (human categorization)

The article currently claims human variation is distributed clinally and discordantly, citing variation in two traits to support this. This source looks at overall variation and finds "Overall about 16.2% of the variation in the genetic distances (FST) could be attributed to pre-historical divergence alone, whereas only 5.2% of the variation in genetic distances could be attributed to IBD. In other words, spatial patterns in genetic distances are much better explained by differences between groups of populations than by similarity among adjacent local populations within these groups."[30] I suggested including this source on the talk page[31] but was told it cannot be used since the source does not use the word race. However it is directly relevant to the section on clines. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the papers cited in Race (human categorization), the paper by Ameen Abdullah et al. does contextualize its findings in the obsolete model of racial classification. It is not about races at all, unless you read things into it (like "populations" = "races") which aren't there. So it is completely off-topic, and its inclusion in the article to prove the fringe point that biological human races somehow exist violates several WP policies (WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV).

The papers cited in the article, however, explicitly mention race, but not in support of it. In fact, all agree that whether phenotypical diversity is clinal or occasionally discontinuous, biological racial categories are inadequate to describe human diversity. –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It discusses clines and the section is about clines. The conclusion that groups explain human variation better than clines is explicitly stated by the high quality source. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your 'conclusion' is intended to support an entirely false assumption: that 'population' (the subject of the paper in question) is a synonym for 'race' (the subject of the article you are proposing to cite it for). Since the source doesn't support your assumption (which is also entirely at odds with current scientific thinking on the subject of human genetic diversity) it cannot be used in the manner you propose, in the article you are proposing to use it in. This is elementary Wikipedia policy, which isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The article states that human variation is largely non-clinal, and that's all it is intended to support. It seems fitting in a section called "clines". And I was hoping to hear from uninvolved editors here. And I'm not sure arguments like "race isn't real because of clines (in two traits in 1964) so material showing non-clinality (genomic pattern analysis in 2009) should be excluded" really work. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this here to seek third party opinions. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidently third parties don't feel the need to explain yet again that Wikipedia cites sources for what they actually have to say about a subject, rather than what one particular contributor would like to pretend they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR Alan B. Samuels (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, it's also very clear that this new SPA is mirroring well worn rhetorical tactics used by LTA sockmasters in the topic area. As far as I'm concerned the conversation has progressed well beyond the point where AGF requires us to engage. Generalrelative (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: Thank you for chiming in, but note that the OP's question here actually is about the source discussed in Talk:Race_(human_categorization)#Clines, a study about the genomic diversity in Asia (also linked in first post by the OP in this section) which does not address the question of race. It would be great if you could also make a comment about this one. –Austronesier (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've struck Alan B. Samuels' comments above now that they've been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Generalrelative (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

List of right-wing terrorist attacks

List of right-wing terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This very lengthy list has very few inline references. My concern is that a lot of the items in this list are not "terrorist attacks" - they are just racist or other hate crimes. Not all hate crimes are terror attacks. For example, the Murder of Mireille Knoll, the Murder of James Craig Anderson, and the Death of Sean Kennedy were all horrific hate crimes. But nothing about them suggests that they were terrorist attacks. For that matter, I don't see anything in any of these articles that ascribes any particular political views to the assailants, so I'm not sure how these are "right-wing" occurrences either. (They are most certainly "hate crimes". But just being a "hate crime" does not make something "right-wing terrorism".) I think this list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and anything that doesn't have a reliable source calling it "right-wing terrorism" or perhaps "neo-nazi terrorism" should be stricken from the list. I'm also not entirely convinced that some of the 1960s things belong on here - for example, Medgar Evers was literally murdered by a Democrat and the Democratic governor of Mississippi appeared in support of him (the murderer) at his trial. So I'm really having trouble with this list - it looks like someone cobbled together a list of every hate crime and declared them to be "right-wing terrorist" attacks, with no reliable source for that designation on any of them. --B (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Much the same can be said for most Wikipedia articles on 'ideologically-motivated-terrorism', all across the political spectrum and beyond. Rife with POV pushing, OR, and poor or non-existent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

When we provide this type of list, I think the list itself should be supported in reliable sources. Since right-wing terrorism is terrorism motivated by right-wing ideology, it is often difficult to classify, since we don't necessarily know the motivation, particularly with individuals involved in one event. Most right-wing terrorists, unlike other types of terrorists, are mentally disturbed and act alone, which makes the determination of motivation difficult. They tend to act alone because they are disturbed and unable to trust other people.

The other issue is that other types of terrorism, such as religious, single-issue and nationalist can be committed by people who are right-wing. Orange terrorists for example tend to be right-wing and religious, but the motivation for their terrorism is ethnic/nationalist: they want to keep Ulster in the UK.

Organized terrorism is easier to classify, since in is easier to determine the motivation of a group.

TFD (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Before considering whether each item meets probably undefinable criteria, such as finding an RS that can define 'right-wing' as a coherent ideology, a proposal for deletion might be a better investment of time. ~ cygnis insignis 14:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• CAUTION - This is an area that is prone to original research. First and foremost, labels such as “terrorism” and “terrorist” are extraordinary claims and thus must be supported by VERY reliable sources. And even then, we should use in-text attribution to make it clear to our readers exactly who has applied the label to the event or person. To then add an ideological modifier (whether political, religious, or other), we also need extraordinarily high quality sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, 'must' and 'should' are very nice sentiments. Unfortunately it has been amply demonstrated that the Wikipedia article-creation-and-editing process is incapable of actually maintaining content that complies, when dealing with such subjects. 'Anyone can edit', so the POV-pushers do. AndyTheGrump (talk)

To add, since "terrorism" can have legal implications (acts of terror tried with more penalties that other crimes without that motivation), these should be based on what authorities have classified the crimes as, not simply what reliable sources say (as they will tend to call a lot of things terrorism that aren't actually tried as such). And since rarely do authorities include "right-wing" type aspects in this classification, this entire list is pretty much a violation of NOR. --Masem (t) 15:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that "right-wing" can be established even without the media calling them a right-winger - for example, if they are a member of a "right-wing" organization. But for a whole lot of these (probably the majority), there is no such membership - it's just the assumption that any hate crime must be a "right-wing" perpetrator, which is obviously false. --B (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, Medgar Evers was murdered by a Klansman, who were very much right wing. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats were very much on the right wing of American politics. His assassination, if not terrorism, was definitely political violence committed by the right wing. BSMRD (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's more a modern re-interpretation / rewrite of history than anything they would have thought of themselves as being. FDR's New Deal was as progressive or more progressive than anything today, for example. Just because the Democrats were the racist party at the time doesn't mean they were "right-wing". --B (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean if you think Strom Thurmond and his Southern Democrat ilk were leftists I can't stop you, but I think they and anyone who has written in depth about American politics at the time would disagree with you. Regardless, the important thing that makes Evers' killer a right-winger isn't that he was a Democrat but that he was a Klansman. BSMRD (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If Medger Evers' killer was "right-wing" and a "terrorist", then you should be able to find a reliable source referring to both of those characteristics. Certainly someone who is a klansman today (or a Proud Boy or a member of some other similar organization) is almost certainly "right-wing" and simply their membership in that organization would satisfy the requirement to demonstrate "right-wing". But in the 1960s, the lines were much more blurred. So if a before someone who is a member of such an organization in the 1960s is called a "right-wing terrorist", I think a reliable source for the characterization of them as "right-wing" needs to be provided. Certainly Strom Thurmand's political views are well documented and "right-wing" is appropriate for him. But I don't know (and it needs to be shown) that Medger Ever's killer was "right-wing". --B (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Before I do, and assuming there will attempts to retrofit citations in support, is there a reason NOT to propose this for deletion? ~ cygnis insignis 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• I could not think of one either, so opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of right-wing terrorist attacks. ~ cygnis insignis 12:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Questionable disamb page "Minor-attracted person"

page was deleted

I came across this disambiguation page (Minor-attracted person) some time ago but forgot about it. Recently it has started attracting attention and it occurred to me that there is no sourcing for this term existing in common use. It also occurs to me that it's not a true disamb, but rather seems to be a term unto itself, and perhaps may have been created with some sort of agenda. Given the highly sensitive and problematic nature of the terms and content it's associated with, I wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard first before I took any further action or engaged any dicussion. I may be completely missing some prior discussion or bit of policy, but I don't really see the point of this page existing.Legitimus (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC) It could be made into a redirect page for pedophilia, with a hatnote template on top for the other "minor-philias." Also, there are some people on Twitter using this term in the context of pedophilia advocacy, but that's not notable. IMO, delete and redirect. Explodicator7331 (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Irrespective of the questionable nature of the topic, I do not see any WP:OR here. If you wish to get rid of it, you should close this discussion and move it over to WP:AFD. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Someone else apparently started an AFD after I posted this. But I agree, this discussion can close in light of this and new info mentioned during the AFD.Legitimus (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OR in 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series

The text below, in the notes of the 2021–22 World Rugby Women's Sevens Series#Standings is not supported by the source for the associated table: (World Rugby). It seems to be OR, has no other source provided and IMO should be removed:

England, a core team for the last four series events, were given half of the points accumulated by Great Britain in Dubai I and Dubai II. The points given for the latter event were rounded up giving England a whole total (8 points rather than 7.5 points).

I opened discussion on the talk page which has reached a limited consensus (with only two participants) that adding a 0.5 points for a rugby game based on non verifiable research is obviously not Ok.

To avoid edit warring, I feel this needs more experienced input. Please help to rectify this. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Felicia "Fe" Montes

I removed what I considered analysis by an editor of a text by the subject of an article as OR, but was reverted by Asilvering. I would appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Was it original research that should be removed or not? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, in this case I don't think it's terribly relevant since I don't think the subject passes notability guidelines anyway. If you were to delete the section because it's irrelevant or because a biography should not exclusively cite its own subject, I'd have no objection. (I put the PROD on it, after all.) But summarizing what someone says in a published work is not WP:OR, or it would be simply impossible to write any plot summaries for any articles on literature, film, etc. That's all these lines are: summaries of what Montes wrote. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Preludes (poem) by TS Eliot

All paragraphs of the article save the first consist of apparently original synopsis/analysis/commentary, all unsourced.

Legal articles: citing too many cases

• Illegal removal of people from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Americans from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aggravated felony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luna Torres v. Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Libracarol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can I get a 2nd opinion about the citation style in these articles? My gut instinct is that long citations citing so many cases is a red flag for WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Too much WP:PRIMARY, not enough WP:SECONDARY. This appears to go against the guidance at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases appear to agree with me. I guess I would like even more opinions to help confirm that I am correct in my interpretation of our policies, and I would also like help cleaning up these articles. The author of these articles reverted me even on small things like fixing this POV lead sentence: Deportation of Americans from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws. so I am not hopeful that they will assist with the cleanup. Finally, I am concerned that the title Illegal removal of people from the United States is inherently WP:POV and I am considering WP:AFDing it. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that a published US Supreme Court opinion made by a group of acclaimed legal scholars is to be treated as a law journal. [32] [33] As such, US Supreme Court opinion is a secondary reliable source for Wikipedia purpose. I cite Supreme Court cases as "notes and references" to satisfy WP:VERIFY. About wanting to have these articles deleted, see WP:CENSOR ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so.").--Libracarol (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The argument that court opinions are like a law journal is fundamentally at odds with the pre-existing consensus (and also completely contradictory to how legal scholarship works). The project-wide consensus is that court opinions are primary sources, per WP:RSLAW § Original texts. The justices of the Supreme court are not doing scholarship, they are acting in their capacities as government officials and drafting government decisions. At the Supreme court level, they are also creating new and original legal material, hence WP:PRIMARY. JBchrch talk 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As I explained to Alyo [34], I'll explain to you here. The part about court opinions being primary was added in 2019 [35] by User:Nick Levinson and based on this: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (law)#If caselaw is a primary source.... You call that "pre-existing consensus"? It's basically one Wikipedian's POV on something he or she is not sure about.--Libracarol (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus usually occurs implicitly, as I'm sure you know. JBchrch talk 17:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That consensus is void now.--Libracarol (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any talk page discussions at RSLAW. Feel free to launch one there if you want to challenge this consensus. And please ping me if you do. JBchrch talk 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I will when it's time, I'm currently busy.--Libracarol (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, secondary sources are required to establish notability. Once some are found, that would further help in framing and structuring the article. Without any secondary source, the identification that there is a coherent topic and identifying the most important features of that topic are original research. Sennalen (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The lede of the "illegal removal..." article clearly violates WP:OR with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH for bonus points. Citing court cases to form a sentence that claims deportation is a capital offense is nonsensical to the extreme. Slywriter (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Illegal_removal_of_people_from_the_United_States - FYI. Slywriter (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It says "illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law." [36] What part of this do you not understand? I quoted the Supreme Court case in the reference section for laypeople like you who don't understand that the word "removal" in US immigration laws means "deportation", and I'm sure you probably never heard of the CAT before. You shouldn't try to delete an article about something you don't know anything and don't like. WP:CENSOR.--Libracarol (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol,Do you understand the policies of no original research and no personal attacks? and yes, claiming "lay persons" can not understand is a personal attack. Slywriter (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sly is clearly referring to the second sentence, which I have since removed. Try to tone down the vitriol a little bit. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I respect all Wikipedians the same way I respect my self. "A layperson (also layman or laywoman) is a person who is not qualified in a given profession or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject." [37] It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're a layperson to the topic. I'm a layperson to many topics. Anything you don't like about the style of other Wikipedian is OR? Like I said commonly-known facts do not need citations or be referenced, it's up to the editor to construct the sentence or paragraph. Editors are not robots but humans from different places of the world. Each has a different style of writing.--Libracarol (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just dropping by to concur that court opinions are secondary sources for purposes other than stating their own conclusions of law with respect to the dispute being adjudicated. For anything else in the opinion (summaries of the state of the law, previous opinions, relevant facts), it is a secondary source. Of course, the conclusions of law, if they are of any moment, will themselves be summarized in later cases. BD2412 T 17:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unless cases are directly described by secondary sources in relationship to the topic, it is original research to use court opinions as citations. We are not legal experts and we cannot attribute weight to which cases are relevant or which parts of the opinion are relevant. If a case is sited by a legal expert, we should still only use quotes pulled out of the opinion by that source - or otherwise clearly factual information (eg what the holding was, who concurred and dissented, etc., as well as the facts of the case.) Anything in opinions of decisions beyond the case background and factual stuff should be treated as a primary source which we shouldn't be building articles from. --Masem (t) 18:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just want to add that the Supreme Court does not engage in any fact findings, it resolves only one specific question of law (rarely two) per case. Its majority opinions end disputes and they become binding on all lower courts. When that happens, all law journals and other sources recite the Court's opinion. I cite the Court directly instead of the journals and news reports because those sources may not be available for some readers, and they may misinterpret the Court's opinion and then we could have constant edit-wars between editors over which source is correct. Also, law journals usually explain to much stuff about various other topics which lead to confusion, but the Court makes it very easy to follow and understand. Quoting a pertinent indisputable statement the Court makes should not be questioned (e.g., defining a specific word or phrase as commonly found in all dictionaries).--Libracarol (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  No one is questioning did the Supreme Court say it. What's being questioned is whether its original research to combine various court decisions into an article that promotes a specific point of view and uses Primary Sources to do so. Further, not using secondary sources because other editors may "misinterpret" is nonsensical. Wikipedia has no requirement that sources be accessible, only that they exist and support the statement.

  At the end of the day, I don't see how ANY wikipedia article can stand on only Primary sources. If others are't discussing the issue in the way it is being presented to reader then it fails WP:DUE moves into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and potentially even WP:FRINGE territory(which the synthesis of illegal deportation of immigrants is a capital offense clearly met). Slywriter (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  This issue also exists in Aggravated_felony which is primarily written by same editor and cites only primary documents. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's not nonsensical, and it's not original research. It's me as a long-established Wikipedian explaining to readers about something I'm an expert on, and I always provide in the section "notes and references" unquestionable sources, which anyone can verify. These articles existed for years without anyone questioning any of their content. Every single sentence in my articles is backed by 100s of reliable sources, of course I don't need to cite all of them. About "illegal deportation of immigrants is a capital offense", where did I write that? I said that 18 U.S.C. § 242 covers such actions and that section explicitly entails capital punishment. [38] Many immigration officers are immigrants from other countries who became citizens and obtained that job, and they need to be aware that we (the people of the United States) don't play when it comes to them violating the rights of others. You don't believe capital punishment in the United States exist? WP:OR "refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [39] Why are you accusing me of violating WP:OR? Do you not see the many reliable published sources in the section "notes and references"? Are you here to harass me because you're bored or something? Maybe you're that same government officer who began following my edits in the past. [40] [41] --Libracarol (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Libracarol you see this is why we need secondary source and heavily discourage editors from using primary sources, because your reading of the law is incorrect. 18 USC 242 says that capital punishment is only available if one of the conditions listed in its last sentence is met, i.e. if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. So when you write that deprivation of rights under color of law... is a crime that entails capital punishment, it's factually incorrect. JBchrch talk 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's obvious to every reader that section 242 can be an infraction in some cases, depending on the sentence imposed. In other words, a person can be found guilty of violating section 242 and given a sentence of a day in prison or even no sentence at all but just probation and a monetary fine. In that case it would be an infraction. That's not important because such sentences are permitted in most criminal statutes. What's important is the capital punishment part because only some statutes entail such a harsh penalty.--Libracarol (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  You need to read the law. It does not depend on the sentence, it depends on the facts of the case. JBchrch talk 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Your argument that some legal sources may not be available is not consistent within policy, per WP:PAYWALL. And while the Court's opinion is key, for WP, we need to see how legal experts take the decision. I do a lot of SCOTUS cases, and most of the major news sources get the basic facts of the opinions right, which works for individual cases.

  But the key here is that trying to create a topic that is based on editors' interpretation of court decisions is absolutely a violation of original research. There's no end of law journals that if a case is important enough, you can find such a paper that helps to support interpretation. --Masem (t) 01:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that court decisions are primary sources and should not be used as sources for articles. TFD (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. There is a difference between "court decisions" and "court opinions". The former relate to facts and events while the latter relate to resolving questions of law and constitutional claims. We are discussing here "court opinions", particularly US Supreme Court opinions about immigration related statutes.--Libracarol (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

https://library.highline.edu/c.php?g=344547&p=2320319 seems pretty clear, case is primary, explanation of case is secondary.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source but just a quick search result and it contradicts itself. "Secondary sources [(e.g., Supreme Court opinions)] are used to help locate primary sources of law, define legal words and phrases, or help in legal research. In short, anything that is more than the actual law is considered a secondary source." https://library.highline.edu/c.php?g=344547&p=2320319 --Libracarol (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what it says, you put "[(e.g., Supreme Court opinions)]" in yourself, so no contradiction at all.Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's gotta be intentional at this point. It says right there that Cases (opinions handed down by courts) [United States and state appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and WA State Supreme Court] are primary. If Highline College is not good enough for you, here's Stanford, Yale, NYU and Harvard all saying the same thing. JBchrch talk 14:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If we use a typical SCOTUS case, there's really only one part of that that is a decision, which if they reversed, vacated, or upheld the cases that came from lower courts and the action to take after that. Everything else is the opinion. Eg: the bulk of Roe v. Wade is the Court opinion. Of course lower courts and SCOTUS will use such opinions to revise their own rulings but these again are still producing decisions (the actual legal steps that must be followed by order of the court) and opinions (the rationale why those orders were made). That's why we don't want editors citing court case decisions directly unless it is in conjunction with other non-decision secondary sources. For example, I used the decision directly to expand on the evaluate of fair use that was in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., but I have secondary sources that affirmed the decision rested on the court's fair use analysis --Masem (t) 14:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• 'Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law.[2][3]'

  - Lede of illegal removal of people from the United States

  Libracarol, can you show how the three sources support this statement? Slywriter (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think you're not familiar with US immigration laws as I am. I'm one of the leading experts on this. I even correct the US Supreme Court, see, e.g., Luna Torres v. Lynch. In that case the Court forgot that Congress was referring to a "conviction" being described by section 844(i). About your question, CAT is a well known international law. It's mentioned in nearly every deportation-related case. In Article 3 of the CAT, it explicitly states that no person can be illegally removed from the country. IIRIRA is a well known law in the United States, which for the first time introduced this single sentence statement: "No decision on deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence." [42] Therefore, if a person is removed illegally it clearly and unambiguously becomes a violation of the CAT. If my introductory sentence is weird then change it to your way. The laws are there and nobody can ignore them. There already are dozens of news reports on this. I figured an article should be written about illegal deportation of people the law does not want them deported.--Libracarol (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming the sources do not support the statement and are original research, synthesis and point of view pushing. Why? because CAT deals with expectation of torture(article notes say so), so an illegal deportation to say Canada would not violate CAT. So your absolute statement is not supported by sources. Anyway, we can deal with the real issue in another venue which is your repeated personal attacks and inability to work in a collaborative manner. Slywriter (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's not what article 3 of the CAT says at all. It only makes deportation illegal if there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture [43]. In fact, it seems like pretty settled law that the scope of article 3 CAT is "limited to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". Yet another factual error. JBchrch talk 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• I agree with Novem's concern. Without repeating the reasons why, which others have explained above and at the previous WT:LAW discussion, these articles are overcited and are overusing court cases, which should be treated as primary sources (and not used for statements in wikivoice). Articles about legal issues should be built around scholarship and, for current events, top-quality journalism; court opinions are neither. The factual errors that have been pointed out are examples of why court cases shouldn't be used: most editors will not properly interpret them. Levivich 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this is probably an ANI issue. I see years of complaints on Libracarol's user talk page about OR. Articles that start with, for example, "Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws,[1][2][3] unless it is done rationally and in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" are totally wrong; that's not at all how a lead is supposed to be (MOS:LEAD); it's written like a law review article instead of an encyclopedia article. This seems to be a pretty long-running issue with one editor... Levivich 01:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Levivich is unnecessarily diverting everyone's attention to my talk page, where years ago a few editors had a normal discussions with me. I didn't create the Cambodian article. I went there to improve it. If you don't like the lead change it. This discussion is not about court cases, it's exclusively about written work of legal scholars that are easily accessible through Harvard Law School. The overcitation can easily be fixed by choosing the better reference over the unnecessary ones.--Libracarol (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Libracarol, let me try to explain this another way. Take a look at some of our law featured articles to get an idea of how great law encyclopedia articles are written. Wikipedia:Featured articles#Law, Sega v. Accolade, Menominee Tribe v. United States. In particular the citations sections. For one, they do not use the |quote= parameter at all, I would suggest you stop using that as 1) it makes citation sections too big and 2) it is a red flag that the citation is too complicated to support what is in the article. Second, you need to switch the sources you're using from cases (primary) to secondary sources. You'll notice that in these FAs, there are many citations to books, a couple to newspapers, a couple to law reviews, and a couple to cases. That is probably the ideal balance in this topic area. Your style of citing all cases probably works great for an attorney in a courtroom, whose job it is to make persuasive arguments using any available precedent they can find, but this does not work great for the job of an encyclopedist, whose job it is to concisely summarize mainstream views and scholarship and obtain the correct WP:WEIGHT. The skillset of an encyclopedist is not identical to the skillset of a great lawyer or legal scholar, please listen to skilled encyclopedists who are trying to teach you their skillset. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I deal mostly with immigration-related articles. Those cases you cited have nothing to do with immigration. Some of the "quotes" could be removed, including some of the cases, I have no issue with that. I added them for the convenient of readers so they don't have to click on the sources. I also have no issue with sources other than court opinions, and I never stopped anyone from citing them. Immigration-related articles are mostly visited by attorneys and immigrants or aliens. That's the reason why I wrote them that way. "The proliferation of immigration laws and regulations has aptly been called a labyrinth that only a lawyer could navigate." [44]--Libracarol (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, will you clean up your articles?

Hi Libracarol. By my count, including the WikiProject Law talk page thread, we are at 9 editors stating that court cases (including Supreme Court cases) are primary sources, and 2 editors against (including you). At this point I think we have a very strong consensus that you are incorrect about this. Most of these editors also agree that you are engaging in original research, and some have raised WP:NPOV concerns as well. Are you willing to make a statement that you understand that this is the wrong way to write Wiki articles, and also commit to cleaning up your existing articles? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You're making this as a court opinion where the majority's opinion controls but that's not how things work in Wikipedia. It's the quality not the quantity that matter for resolving the issue here. You know one editor can email all friends and invite them here? And you know that some editors have more than one user name? You saying Supreme Court opinions are primary is unsourced POV. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin.--Libracarol (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Shrug. I've been trying to convince you of community norms patiently and politely, only escalating to the next noticeboard if/when you are inflexible. You've got 9 editors (8 very experienced, including an admin) and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts telling you that we do things a certain way, yet you are still not convinced. You sound like a subject matter expert so it'd be great to convince you of our community norms via persuasion rather than sanctions. But it doesn't sound like we're getting through to you. Bummer. Sounds like we'll have to go to yet another noticeboard. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll always be ready wherever you take this issue to. May I remind you that everyone will laugh when you say to them that written opinions by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School are primary sources and not reliable secondary sources.--Libracarol (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Assange mini-stroke possible synth

At Talk:Julian_Assange#Mini-stroke there is a discussion about inclusion of whether to include that his fiancee Stella Moris said Assange suffered a mini-stroke on the 27th October on the first day of a hearing into his extradition. One objection is that putting it in would amount to synth, "... Moreover, juxtaposition of a statement about Assange's health with unrelated content about his court appearance would constitute SYNTH and could mislead our readers". It seems a bit much to me to remove the information because it happened during the hearing. Is synth really saying that or should it really be put in a seprate paragraph and no mention made of the hearing or what? NadVolum (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

When writing a biography, one normally does so in chronological order. Which generally results in things that happened at around the same time being described in proximity in the text. I suggest that the article merely reports the facts according to whatever reliable sources we have, and leaves it to the reader to decide whether there is any connection between the events described. It is generally better to assume readers have the ability to think for themselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

The article is not organized chronologically and frankly, I've seen no biographies of controversial living persons that follow such a scheme. Or even bios of the long-departed e.g. Jonathan Swift Isaac Newton Horace.

At any rate, the issue of Assange's health has repeatedly been raised by various of his supporters, attorneys and others in several contexts to plead for denial of the extradition mandate that is the subject of current discussion and the article section in which this content was inserted. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, if his state of health has been raised by his attorneys, it would seem rather strange to omit content regarding said state, since it is clearly relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump:. It has not been raised by his attorneys nor by anyone else other than his consort, as far as we know. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Biographies are not required to be in chronological order, particular the way we usually push off Personal Life details to their own section and leaving clear career factors in the "main" section. Unless RSes have tied the mini-stroke to the trial, it would be inappropriate to highlight it there, and within a Personal Life section, could be said "ahead of his October 2021 trial..." --Masem (t) 19:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Assange's state of health isn't just a 'personal life' issue if it is seen as relevant to the trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a small personal life section that gives a bit about his former wife, his fiancee and children. Actually looking at it now I think some of it relating to his imprisonment should perhaps be in the main chronologial part and cut it down even more. The stroke happened on the first day of the hearing. NadVolum (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the notional synthesis? If this implication drawn from a combination of sources exists, we should at least know what this notional synthesis is. It's certainly not apparent from a reading of the proposed article text. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I've not seen anything being discussed here which looks like synthesis. No novel conclusion is being drawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Placement in the section relating to his trial will suggest to many readers that there is a connection between this (undocumented) stroke and his legal case. His supporters have insinuated claims of health risks into many of Assange's prior and ongoing conflicts with authorities. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So, no actual novel conclusion at all then. Just sourced and relevant content you'd rather not see in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting Specifico that there is no synthesis. Were there to be a connecting clause or even merely a conjunction, joining or providing a connection between the preceding content about the hearing and this content about a mini-stroke that occurred during the same hearing, one could make an argument of synthesis (but not a strong one).

No such clause or conjunction has been proposed. The notional synthesis was illusory (or invented). It’s entirely appropriate to place a separate sentence, about an incident that took place at the exact same time in Assange’s biography as another event, in proximity to the description of the latter event. Obviously. What you claim, without any evidence, that "his supporters" (you give no indication how you know who they are) have "insinuated" is of no relevance or consequence to this discussion, except inasmuch as your belief may go some way to explain the exceptionally poor judgement you exercise as to what content policies are relevant to this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources that tie the stroke to the trial (beyond noting the stroke happened on the first day of the trial), it is absolutely synthesis and coatracking of an undue aspect (medical health) to his legal situation. I don't know if there are sources or not that comment on the stroke and the impact on the trial, but they absolutely need to be there to make that strong a connection outside of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You write of that strong a connection. There is no connection whatsoever implied in the proposed text. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Placing the information about the stroke outside of a personal life section and alongside the trial is coatracking that information, which is synth and not appropriate. --Masem (t) 04:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

From WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy, incidentally): "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects". The subject of the article is Assange. Everything in it relates to his personal life. Including his health, and the trial. There has already been much discussion in reliable sources regarding claims over health problems as possible grounds to halt extradition. And there is nothing in policy that dictates a biography arbitrarily divide related content into different sections, purely to avoid placing content together because some contributors would prefer that readers not be allowed to come to their own conclusions about possible connections within it. If such a policy were ever enacted, and enforced, it would make writing biographies impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

With (still) no explanation of where this notional synth or coatrack arises, this remains an unsupported bare assertion. Proximity alone is not a basis for tenuously claiming two unconnected sentences about two events that occurred on the same day to the same person as a synthesis. That’s not in the policy, and as Andy says, such a policy would make writing BLP next to impossible. Which is presumably why consensus has not seen to include that in the policy (nor indeed has anyone ever suggested it). The article subject is Julian Assamge’s life, not the intricacies of a court case. The section subject is also Assange’s life, in the most recent period. The notion that including an event that occurred in the relevant section of his life is a coatrack is not grounded in reality. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Stella Moris certainly did make a connection to the trial and his previous treatment in what she said but the proposal did not include any part of that. That would just be her opinion. I guess others might make that connection too but I think we'd need something better saying there was or was not a connection before going down that path. It is a pity her statement about him having had an MRI scan and being on stroke medication is omitted in the green listed perennial souces at WP: RSP and only in yellow ones currently - there was someone at the discussion saying basically it might all be a lie by Stella Moris, they'd need an MRI to check and why is it not on the BBC site if it is worth putting in the article! NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)