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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

SYNTH, NPOV

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

Discussion

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

French revolution and Hiraab

User:Ayaltimo might be adding original research onto Hiraab Imamate . The page was cleaned up by a bot before , who removed unsourced content that was added including the images [1] and Ayaltimo came back to restore it.

I told him that that the sources he adds need to be verifiable or else its just original researchWP:PROVEIT. There is no google search results on this supposed happening, no links or way to verify it and it is never mentioned aside from what he and that other Abshir55 troll account put down on the page.

Just to be clear i have nothing against the addition if it's sourced and real. He just has to prove it.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to say the user Ragnimo has personal issues with me and has been following me around touching my works but I will warn him I will make bold decisions and report him to the moderator if he continues the silly behaviour that can get him banned.

As for the bots. Please properly check your links. It only shows the removal of images, not the actual sources which you claimed they removed.

The link is blacklisted so combine the two parts of the link I have separated (https://docdro. id/5UGmIFo) If you read on page 108-109. It literally mentions the French invasion of Mogadishu and how the ships sunk. Just because you can't read Arabic doesn't mean others can't.

No original research here. Just you being a disruptive user. I suggest you refrain from future conflicts or I will report you to the arbitration for harassment. Ayaltimo (talk) 02:50, 06 February 2021 (UTC)

The only problem i have is with you potentially adding original research onto the Hiraab wikipage, i have had issues with your edit warring and trolling, adding original research before, it's nothing persona and lets keep to the matter before us. I opened up this page on the noticeboard to resolve it to avoid an edit war and i left that page for several days waiting for someone to respond to the notice board request so i am not following anyone.

Please copy and paste the information provided in that link and give translations of its content.

Follow the vefiability guidelines WP:NOENG , english sources are preferred and if you are going to use a non-english source show translations of it.

Cheers. Ragnimo (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, your personal issue with me is because you assumed I was a sock puppet of Alaska Lava and it was disproven by multiple moderators. [2] You even followed me and removed my work for no apparent reason only because you don't like me. [3] then you left it alone because you saw how disruptive you are. You have no ground to falsely accuse anybody of adding original research when you claimed Fakr ad-Din was of Ajuran descent. [4] Please find me a source that illustrates he was of Ajuran origin. I promise you don't have a source for it because it's straight flat out was made up by you and you'll avoid answering the question.

For your information, I didn't add the French Reconnaissance. It was Abshir55 another user you falsely accused of being a sock puppet thus it is evident you don't like him and tried to remove his source without any valid reason. You could've pinged him on the talk page and kindly asked him but you show this hostile behaviour which is a bad look to the community. People are supposed to enjoy editing and contributing to this great site not fight with others and cause negativity.

There are plenty of non-English sources why don't you verify them? You're only following me around to cause trouble. Let an Arab speaker here read it and verify it. It mentions 7 French ships that sunk.

I will warn you next time not to follow me or touch any of my work because I will simply revert back and file a complaint for your ban. Thank you. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:55, 07 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ragnimo

Many Thanks for stepping in, i haven't dealt with you directly so i welcome a third person here, i also have disputes on several pieces of information on that Page which i am happy to discuss any further as i've had well referenced sources discarded by the very person(s) you've argued with. I am not in any way connected to them or any user(s) representing themselves or Alaska or anyone else for that matter.

Cheers. Abshir55 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All i asked was for you to provide a translation for the source to verify if it's real or not and you could have just done that and ended this. But instead are writing paragraphs of personalized projections and dragging off topic stuff into this

Keep this short and simple to the matter at hand. And i have no interest in your other Abshir55 troll account either.

@EdJohnston: come see this and make an ending judgement about this.I am not interested in a back and forth or edit war. He won't provide a translation for the supposed source he is claiming. Which makes me think it's most likely fake, the content of it has nothing to do with it and there is no google search results or any other english source mentioning this supposed happening.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a recommendation here? I have just attempted to read the junk that is posted above and have no idea what you are fighting about. This is the "No Original Research" noticeboard, we want to know what it is you disagree about, not why you hate each other. An image has been deleted, User:Ayaltimo post it below please and say why you think it is original research to include it. Ragnimo you can then explain why you think it is not original research. Do not make any references to your past discussions/disagreements because they are of no relevance to the matter at hand, this is the main reason that nobody has answered you. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

v Area for discussion that actually has a point v

Ok thank you User:Boynamedsue i will keep it simple and to the point. I am the one who believes it is original research not User:Ayaltimo. He included this Hiraab_Imamate#The_French_Reconnaissance into the Hirab article, with the section title French Reconnaissance. I looked it up and there is no google search results on this [5], not a single source on the web mentions this. Which makes me believe its Original research he is trying to slip in.

So i opened this board asking for people to look into it and i asked him to verify and prove it. Then he linked me The History of Somalia Sharif Aydurus https://www.docdro id.net/5UGmIFo/the-history-of-somalia-sharif-aydurus-pdf#page=108 and said it's written on page 108-109, but it's in Arabic. I would be careful about clicking on this link do it from a secure browser with a VPN/Proxy . I asked him to copy it and provide a side by side translation of it where it mentions French Invasion instead. He hasn't provided a translation of it instead went on a tandem of personalized attacks and off topic inchoerent ramblings.

But this is why i think it's original research. Ragnimo (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Ragnimo, thanks for the answer. Why do you believe it to be dangerous to click on that link? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue I believe it could be risky because docdroid net is blacklisted website on wiki and as spam elsewhere and he had to publish it in space seperation because wiki doesn't allow it and its coming from a troll user as you can see above from his ramblings above. I nonethless opened it with a secure browser with a VPN/Proxy to check it's content it contains a history book that is refrenced in other Academic sources but none of those english sources that refrences that book mentions French incursion in 1701 Ragnimo (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, so we can be sure there is a source but not of what it says. Please don't make accusations of trolling here, if you seriously feel it to be a problem, you should speak directly to an admin.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo, I have also looked in French and Italian for sources relating to a French incursion to Somalia in 1701, and found nothing except wiki-type sites which do not cite a source. Could you provide the relevant Arabic text with a translation into English? Unless you do so, the information can not remain in the article. It is up to you to provide that information when challenged. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Boynamedsue. In Wikipedia, there are plenty of English articles that use non-English sources for references so the excuse he is making is ridiculous, and trying to find another sad excuse to remove it. I didn't post the French Reconnaissance. It was actually posted by the user Abshir55 and I looked up the source this is why I didn't personally remove it myself. He stated there is no link for this source and I provided it for him now he's trying to say it's blacklisted but doesn't realize the link isn't posted on the article just the name and page number of the book.

Here is the translation.

"In year 1097 Hijri ( 1686 gregorian ), reigned the suldan of Hiraab. Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an),

Sunday 23 Jumada the first 1112 seven French ships docked at Mogadishu harbour and they want to conquer Mogadishu, they stayed offshore for 11 days. Seven Sheikh's from the men of the two neighborhoods ( Shingaani and Hamarweyne) came together in Sheikh faqih Ahmed ibn faqih Abu Bakr al-Qahtani ibn wa'il ibn Hajar and he was the one that all consulted in all the places, Banadir, and others, and they repelled"

It's an oral tradition account that mentions the French invasion of Mogadishu and how they manage to repel them. I hope the dispute has been cleared. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo Copy and paste the Arabic text above it the English translation. The translation you gave makes no sense.

Also Boynamedsue can you ping an arabic reader to verify it? the text he linked.

Thanx Ragnimo (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo, I don't know what is going on between you two but calm down. The text is perfectly comprehensible, despite a couple of grammatical inaccuracies. There may be need for an Arabic speaking reader to check it whatever, not for the question of whether it is an RS, but for what we should say about the oral tradition. Ayaltimo thank you for that. You are absolutely right that foreign language sources are acceptable in wikipedia, I use them frequently myself. I also find it frustrating when users have a tendency to disregard them. However, Ragnimo is right, it is necessary to provide the original Arabic text as well.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue I am calm, but to me it sounds made up. Especially this part Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an) and also the rest of it. He said it was oral history, how would oral history have exact dates.

Can you ping an active arab speaking editor? To come check it or else i'll just find one through the Arabic speaking list. Ragnimo (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a name listing descent in the traditional Arabic way. Basically saying "The Imam was [Steve]". I think the "an" is possibly a machine translation glitch. The question of the text is whether it might be a Primary Source, the oral tradition might have a place in the text if named as such if the book is RS. I want the text in Arabic first before I take it to an Arabic speaking user, I am probably going to have to ask them to look at the text around the cited passage as well, so I want to know exactly what I'm going to ask them before I do. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Boynamedsue for explaining and correcting this pitiful user who is using his emotions to judge my translation. The reason why I brought up the past above is because it explains why he is disputing with me. He has personal issues with me, not because of the source. He is just looking for problems. Anyways, I brought the link and the translation of this book. I have an English keyboard so I don't know how to type it in Arabic but I did translate it. Even if I manage to bring the Arabic text here it won't guarantee anything nor will it get you the accurate translation from google because Arabic is not like English. One word could have multiple meanings. This user doesn't know Arabic so he is just wasting my time and your time. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo You also need to calm down, and you need to edit the abuse out of the first sentence of your last post. Like I said, I don't care about you two's history. Ok, the link you gave was to an electronic copy of the book, can you not copy paste from that? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dr-Taher: Hi you are an Arabic translating editor, can you check this book:( https://www.docdro id.net/5UGmIFo/the-history-of-somalia-sharif-aydurus-pdf#page=108) on page 108-109 and see if it says anything about french incursion into Mogadishu on year 1686:

"In year 1097 Hijri ( 1686 gregorian ), reigned the suldan of Hiraab. Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an),

Sunday 23 Jumada the first 1112 seven French ships docked at Mogadishu harbour and they want to conquer Mogadishu, they stayed offshore for 11 days. Seven Sheikh's from the men of the two neighborhoods ( Shingaani and Hamarweyne) came together in Sheikh faqih Ahmed ibn faqih Abu Bakr al-Qahtani ibn wa'il ibn Hajar and he was the one that all consulted in all the places, Banadir, and others, and they repelled"

Does the Arabic text say this?

Ragnimo (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, here is the Arabic text and its translation:

Caption text

Title	Arabic	English
Book name	بغية الآمال في تاريخ الصومال	Reaching hopes in the history of Somalia
Page No. according to the book numbering	109
Page No. according to the Pdf file numbering	111
Line-1	سلطان هراب	Sultan Herab
Line-2-3	وفي سنة (1097 هـ)، تولي السلطنة: الإمام محمد بن إمام أحمد بن إمام محمود بن إمام عمر هلول اليعقوبي.	And in the year (1097 AH), the Sultanate was assumed by: Imam Muhammad bin Imam Ahmad bin Imam Mahmoud bin Imam Omar Halul al-Yaqoubi.
Line-4-7	وفي يوم الأحد (23 جماد الآخر سنة 1112 هـ)، وصلت إلى مقدشوه سبعة مراكب للإفرنج، وكانوا يريدون أن يملكوا مقدشوه، ومكثوا في المرسى إحدى عشر يوما، فاجتمع السبعة من المشائخ من رجال الحارتين (شنغاني وحمروين) عند الشيخ فقيه أحمد بن فقيه أبي بكر القحطاني بن وائل بن حجر وكان هو من ......	On Sunday (23 Jumad al-Akhir in the year 1112 AH), seven boats of the Franks arrived at Mogadishu, and they wanted to conquer Mogadishu, and they stayed at the marina for eleven days, so the seven sheikhs from the men of the two neighborhoods (Shangani and Hamroen) met with Sheikh Faqih Ahmad bin Faqih Abi Bakr Al-Qahtani bin Wael bin Hajar, and he was from ......

.--Dr-Taher (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr-Taher Thanks a lot, that is really useful. I have a couple of questions, firstly am I correct in thinking that "the Franks" translates "al franj" meaning, generally, Christians from the western Mediterranean or northern Europeans, rather than "the French" (something like "fransawi" I think)? Secondly, what is the general context in which this quote appears, are they the words of the modern author or is he quoting someone else directly? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, Yes, The Arabic word "الإفرنج" (Al-efrnj) or "الفرنجة" (Al-fernjah) is used first to refer to French people, but it is widely used later to refer to any Europeans. This book was written at 1954, The author stated on page 14-pdf that he used references and old documents, and list some of them. The quote is the words of the modern author, not someone else. --Dr-Taher (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again, so in your view it is not possible to state they were French ships, but it is reliable historical evidence for a European incursion in 1701? --Boynamedsue (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr-Taher Thank you so much for taking the time. Your translation and explanation makes more sense. It was probably referring to Europeans in a general manner and not the french like Boynamedsue said. Because there is no search result elsewhere about that. Also does it say that they repulsed them?

Ragnimo (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr-Taher You said later. Sharif Aydurus was quoting a tradition so he could've been referring to the French incursion because there are historical documents of Somalis resisting Portuguese incursion and they never once referred to them as Al-fernjah. He would've used البرتغالية instead since the Portuguese were well known in the Arab world during Ottoman reign. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo How does Somalis resisting portugese incursion relate to the French? Firstly the Portugese incursion is seperate and occured in th 16th century at an earlier date and secondly thats documented in multiple sources even in portugese sources. A french incursion is never mentioned anywhere, Boynamedsue was kind of enough to look into it and found nothing.

I think it's safe to conclude that Al-Fernajh was referring to Europeans in a general manner.

Ragnimo (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo You still don't get it. The only Portuguese incursion against Somalia happened in the 16th century and they never referred them to as Al-Fernajh in Arabic sources. This is the 17th century where French naval presence was well known in the Indian ocean. Dr-Taher stated (Al-fernjah) is used first to refer to French people, but it is widely used later to refer to any Europeans. Sharif Aydurus was quoting an older oral tradition that mentioned Al-Fernajh so it's very likely they were talking about the French because Franks were known by Muslims since their invasion in France by the caliphate. Franks to describe all of Europeans is a recent term. This oral tradition dates back in 1701. Ayaltimo (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo I don't get what? If you know that the Portugese presecense i seperate, why mention it? The problem with the claim of French incursion in Mogadishu is the lack of sources collaborating it, nothing shows up about it. Whereas if i google Malagasay/Madagascar french naval prescense in the 1700s multiple sources comes up. Specifically this book Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion[6] which details the documented prescense of French overseas. Look at the part about Indian ocean no mention of Mogadishu.

The book was written in 1950s and the qoute is the words of the modern author and not someone else as DR Taher pointed out. It safe to conclude it has the modern meaning.

Besides there are other earlier qoutes and sayings from Somalis with the use of 'Ferenji' and it's always interpret to be about Europeans in general. For example [7]

Ragnimo (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo Thank you for showing me the link of Somalis using Ferenji term to describe Europeans. I always thought it meant French but it seems the term can also describe white people in general and because the source is not clear. I will take it down. Thank you. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo I thought you made the whole thing up at first and you were trying to troll the page with Original Research. But it looks like it was actually written in the source you listed for it just not about the French. It can remain and you can change it into European incursion instead. We can remove it if you feel the source isn't that clear.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo It's fine. I removed it and thank you for admitting I wasn't trolling. I just thought it would be another valuable Somali history to add but since you proved to me Ferenji term could describe any European there is no reason for the incursion to stay up on that page because it's unclear. I'm honestly a fan of your work and despite being busy I wish to offer some contribution. I hope we can move forward from here, Jazakallah Kheyr. Dr-Taher and Boynamedsue thanks for your help and input. We both reached a middle ground. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fan of my work? lol i actually take back what i said about not trolling. The source isn't clear so it shouldn't stay up. The matter is resolved.

Have a good day Ragnimo (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo Ayaltimo, well done on reaching a resolution. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo I meant a fan of your contribution to Somali Wikipedia since there aren't many Somali editors that contribute to Somali history. I'm being very genuine. I don't understand why you view me as a troll? Just before you thought I made up the translation but now you know I didn't. I just want to develop Somali pages just as much as you do. Please see it that way and you too have a good day. Ayaltimo (talk) 8:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevada Athletic Commission records 1980s

I would like to contribute Nevada Athletic Commission documents from the 1980s to the Commons. These are boxing manager agreements of five fighters who signed with Sally Conforte who is deceased. At least one of the fighters is alive: Vinnie Curto. He has a website and a book I can link to. I can't prove she managed three of the fighters without these documents. Do you think the documents are public domain? Should I scan and upload them? What's best file format to upload? Thanks.Owilli2019 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tropical year

Please see Talk:Tropical year#Dispute possible original research who believes the following may be added without providing a reliable source:

A more suitable sine wave expression can be found having the same first, second, and third derivatives.

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we combine examples to suggest a pattern even if no RS notes the pattern?

I have a question that came out of this Tucker Carlson discussion [[8]]. I'm asking a hypothetical based on the linked discussion thus the characterizations here are not meant to be true to the details in that link. It is not uncommon that an editor adds a criticism to the Carlson (or similar) page where Carlson carefully chooses his words to say something that is true but many would take to mean something else. In this case, a group caused vs participated in the storming of the capitol. Carlson will say something like that, a few RSs will object, an editor decides to add that content to the Carlson page. The adding editor feels this is an emblematic behavior and should be added. The media comments on many things Carlson says, adding this one is UNDE. If we agree this sort of rhetorical slight of hand is used a lot and can think of several examples how can this be added in a OR compliant way? Do we need a RS saying, "Carlson frequently uses rhetorical slight of hand" or can we just say, Carlson has been criticized for using rhetorical slight of hand [examples 1-5]? Can we as editors suggest a pattern if RSs don't say as much. If not, what would be the best way to include these 5 hypothetical examples if no individual example is due? Springee (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is to look at the sources and see what patterns they do note. In particular, that source says that "There’s another effort propagated by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, in which he attempts to diminish the idea that white nationalists had a significant presence — or, perhaps, any presence — on that day. His motivations for doing so are complicated. Carlson is sensitive about people being labeled as “white nationalist” after he himself was targeted with the label following various members of his staff being outed for using white nationalist rhetoric and for his own comments about immigration and race. He’s also heavily invested in the idea that allegations of white nationalism are being used as a fraudulent predicate to attack Republicans broadly." That suggests that the appropriate place to cover this is in a section related to Carlson's treatment of white nationalism. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you proposed a good way to address the content at the article. I don't think it really answers my hypothetical. The gap being the hypothetical assumes there is no current place in the article for any of the examples (each are undue as stand alone) but together they form a pattern which hasn't been noted in RSs. Springee (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion's suggestion is good, and I think the answer to your question is that it would be original research to report a pattern that hasn't been identified by reliable sources. Even if you can find several examples of the behavior in reliable sources, we have no way of knowing if those examples are representative or anomalous. Best to avoid interpretation. pburka (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that when talking BLP, arriving at original research conclusions that are not absolutely stated in the RS is a problem; if this wasn't a BLP, this would be less a concern. There's a very bad slippery slope from allowing such original research involving BLPs that could lead to people using Wikivoice to make inappropriate statements about BLP in trying to find ways to summarize or characterize behavior in this fashion. As Aquillion said, it is best to stick to what the sources actually do try to characterize as patterns as to avoid the OR/slippery slope in Wikivoice. Absent a source that gives that, even if there are numerous examples of, say, "rhetorical slight of hand" - not called as such but examples that no one would question, it would still be inappropriate for WPians to summarize them up as a comment that they are examples of "rehtorical slight of hand" without a source to back that up. --Masem (t) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• In a BLP we need to be extra strict with ourselves. It is vital to avoid any hint of WP:SYNTH. So, do NOT state (or even imply) connections or conclusions that are not directly made by a source (and attribute that source in text). Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's OR, because it would be reporting your conclusions. Editors' opinions may be wrong or the evidence could be subject to different interpretations. If we use a conclusion in reliable sources then we can assess if it has concensus, majority or minority support. Of course there is no question here, but there are subjects where there would be. The other issue is weight. If no reliable sources report the conclusion then there is no reason we should. The experts have decided that the information is too insignificant to report.

One thing we have to beware of is implicit OR. That happens when we start with a conclusion and assemble evidence to support it. The reader then is lead to a conclusion, even though it is not explicitly stated. Some editors say they are just presenting the evidence and letting readers decide. But the same approach can be used to promote fringe views. We could for example add a long list of Democratic or Republican politicians who have been convicted of serious crimes to their respective articles. The implicit conclusion would be that the party was corrupt.

It is important to remember that articles are merely supposed to summarize the facts and opinions that appear in reliable sources. Reliable sources may neglect important aspects of a subject, overemphasize others and be generally biased. While it is tempting to correct these failures, it probably wouldn't work in practice as long as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Under existing policy for example, I can rebut a claim that the moonlanding was faked by pointing out that reliable sources treat it as real. I would be out of my depth in addressing the arguments of conspiracy theorists.

TFD (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• This seems to be a request to engage in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and "rhetorical sleight of hand" is a very slippery phrase. I'd say no, you need sources that say he does this repeatedly, don't just search MediaMatters for a plethora of articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• The only way I could see this being OK is if they were the only examples (two unique documents, say). Otherwise it is cherrypicking in order to promote a conclusion (synth).Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

All, thanks for the feedback. This isn't something I want to do, rather I'm often the one who is trying to remove these things as UNDUE. I'm sensitive to the fact that many editors see this as whitewashing and feel that examples similar to this one need to be included because they show a pattern. IE, they look at the edit history and see say 5 examples of similar material being removed as UNDUE and feel, when taken as a sum, those examples are important even if no single example would pass DUE. At the same time, I agree with the above, if outside sources aren't saying this is a pattern then we shouldn't imply or say a pattern exists. Kind of a forest for the trees problem. I think this is particurally true with an article like Tucker Carlson. Almost weekly we have at least a few RSs discussing something Carlson said the day before. A few of those items really are DUE but many aren't. Springee (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You probably are correct that there are WP:UNDUE issues, but I think the NOR/WP:SYNTH issue is more of a problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The sentence has five cited sources, none of which (in my opinion) in fact support this claim. There is a special notice on this article against misrepresenting sources, so this seems particularly important to get right. The same wording cited to the same sources has been copied to at least three other articles: Intelligence quotient [9], Heritability of IQ (twice) [10][11], and Racial achievement gap in the United States (originally added here [12] and then moved to the new article [13]). Proposed remedies include simply removing the sentence in question, or adding a qualifier (such as no direct evidence for a genetic component, or no evidence for a significant genetic component).

So could we please determine whether the sources support the statement in question, or does it constitute WP:OR? Most of the talk page discussion has focused on one of the sources in particular, Hunt's Human Intelligence. The relevant section is pages 432-447, and a preview is available online[14]. The other sources are Mackintosh, Nisbett, Kaplan, and Ceci & Williams.

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous RfC on this topic (although not these sources) can be found here: [15]. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) A crucial piece of context that is left out of Stonkaments posting here is that this issue was the subject of an RfC last year (where around 50 editors weighed in over the course of several weeks): [16] The finding there was: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory. Given this, I'm not sure that we need to be quibbling over this statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a 2020 statement by a group of prominent scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina, which discusses the question of why we see so few actual geneticists publishing research on the topic of race and IQ: [17] It is worth quoting at length: [W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. So we shouldn't be swayed by the quantity of research published in second-rate journals with strong institutional ties to racial hereditarianism. We should look instead at the quality of the research and whom among the scientific mainstream it persuades. Which brings me to...

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

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

Academic consensus does not mean that there is 100% agreement but that a position is so widely accepted that it will be treated as true. Spectrum of fringe theories refers to "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." Most of these formulations are ignored in mainstream scholarship. Sometimes experts will review their research and explain why it is flawed. In rare cases, the new formulation will become accepted or at least be considered a valid alternative view. Gavin Evans wrote in The Guardian, "One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance." (2 March 2018)[18] That summarizes what weight race science currently has. TFD (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources