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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food

See here Posting here since issues of WP:SYN have been raised. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Related Synthesis Question

On the Genetically_modified_food page is a claim "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." it has 10 sources. the "There is broad scientific consensus" part is only expressly stated by one source, and that partially "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." . The remaining citations do not. They speak of safety in some form or another. Are the remaining sources forming a synthesis to back up the one? Are all the sources forming a synthesis that make up the claim as the one source does not expressly state that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." "I would welcome an uninvolved party to answer this. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 19:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoting OR websites

In wikipedia article MH17 material is quoted from a website www.bellingcat.com

1) I'm pretty sure the material on that website counts as OR

2) Assuming I am right on (1), surely OR material from it cannot be presented on wikipedia with the defence that 'Quoting other refs on a subject is not original research. The ban on OR means that we don't publish OR here on Wikipedia, but we quote it from other sources'

If I am wrong on (2) surely that is a back-door for people to publish OR on their own websites and then link it into an article as not OR, i.e. "quote it [OR] from other sources"?

Sorry I can't work how to use the notify template, the user involver is Ahunt I'd be grateful if someone notifies him.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of no original research policy. Please read it again. It's perfectly fine for external sources to do "OR". In fact that's what they're supposed to do. It's Wikipedia editors who should not engage in OR.

As to 2) that's where WP:RS policy on reliable sources comes in. If I publish something on my website and it gets covered in secondary reliable sources, then yeah it could be used (assuming it doesn't violate some other policy). If it doesn't, it can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks I see the problem is the website with the OR is not that it is OR but that it is not RS and have removed it again Dbdb (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is reliable. Your edit literally deleted references to the Washington Post, Deutsche Welle, Forbes. Stickee (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Using a sequence of photos to draw a conclusion

This question is related to a discussion about images for Going commando at Talk:Going commando#Image again. My question, which I don't think is clearly spelled out in the NOR policy and guidelines, is how far editors can go in drawing conclusion based on a series of photos. Can we say that the model in File:Pierced blonde in studio 07.jpg is not wearing underwear because she isn't wearing any one minute later in File:Pierced blonde in studio 05.jpg (NSFW)? We don't know what costume changes too place in the one minute that passed between photos, so can we make assumptions? Do we even know if photo timestamps are accurate? How far, in general, can editors go in interpreting the meaning of a sequence of photos to reach conclusions that are beyond what you could see from looking at only one of the images in isolation?

And can we only look at File:Pierced blonde in studio 07.jpg and say, "well, she'd look different (IMHO) if she had underwear on"?

What I see is sources that mostly say that under normal circumstances (outside of exhibitionism or upskirt hijinks) others don't have any idea whether or not a person is wearing underwear, and in cases where others do find out it's because some social norm or expectation has been violated. Which raises the question of whether or not you can illustrate a topic which is not normally visible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Word Passport

Extensive original research. A rough estimate, at least two-thirds of the sources given therein come from the self-styled "World Service Authority", so called, which are in fact also the issuer of this self-styled passport. -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a lot better to cite the new media at least, like the Slate article (which also refers to a New York Times article not yet cited on Wikipedia). --Dowcet (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

George Caunter

I have tagged the article on George Caunter as containing original research, which has been disputed by another user. My concern is that there are many statements which are only supported by primary sources (regardless of their reliability), whereas User:Jefferyseow insists that all of these sources are accurate and reliable. Please see Talk:George_Caunter and weigh in on whether or not the tag is warranted. Dowcet (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Asking questions on Twitter

Recently, especially when it comes to voice actors, I've noticed a trend of individuals asking questions to an individual on Twitter, either about their personal work or coworkers, and then inserting their response onto the article. A recent example is Blood Blockade Battlefront where this tweet asking about another voice actor resulted in this response. Immediately afterward the response, this edit was made to the article, was reverted per WP:BLP, and reinstated with the link to the tweet. Given that the information was not previously published in a reliable source AND the information was clearly the result of an editor asking a question on Twitter, would this practice be considered original research? —Farix (t | c) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't permit self-published sources (which Twitter clearly is)to be used as "a third-party source about another living person" - which means it can't be used in the example you give. More generally, there is the obvious problem of being able to confirm that the Twitter account actually belongs to the person it is claimed to. And frankly, if the only source for something is a comment on Twitter, it probably doesn't belong in an article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The little blue checkmark indicates accounts where Twitter has verified it belongs to the actual person. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Original research has a precise and specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is insertion of claims that are not supported by a reliable source. While taking the initiative to find or even prompt the creation of a reliable source would be commonly understood as "doing research", it is outside the particular meaning of OR as a term of art on Wikipedia. The resulting source should be regarded the same as any source for consideration, so in the case of a tweet it would be a WP:SPS. Rhoark (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem using a comment made by a verified person on Twitter to source information in the article as long as it's not being used to verify notability. Once notability has been established, it is perfectly acceptable to use a primary source for information. Sometimes, that is the only way to get the information. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon and Comparison to Dassault Rafale

There is a dispute at Eurofighter Typhoon concerning proposed language comparing the Eurofighter to the Dassault Rafale, concerning whether the proposed language amounts to synthesis having the nature of original research. This issue has been at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and a decision has been made to take the issue to this noticeboard for comments by editors who are familiar with the application of the original research policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft paragraph and comments of proponent

The draft paragraph with contentious bits in bold.

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes. An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection."

With respect to first bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm insinuating that the composite percentages are the reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS than the Rafale, just because it follows a sentence that does draw a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

1. Wrt composite percentages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing. Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article."

I.e. it is not synthesis just because two sourced facts are stated in separate juxtaposed sentences. So when Mztourist says, "This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence," he is incorrect. Even if we removed the part about the Rafale, it would still be in the Rafale article, indeed the image source is from that article anyway. So the facts would all still be there in wikipedia, saying the exact same thing and having the same meaning. As per "SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition" the reader gets the same facts even if they are placed elsewhere in the article, or project.

With respect to second bolded bit, they claim it is synthesis because they assume I'm proposing this as further synthesised proof of RCS, just because it follows a sentence that does source a comparison. However here is what the relevant section on the wikipedia "what synth is not" page has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization "Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4""

I.e just because I'm summarising the content of the radar detection range equation in the sources, it is not synthesis, and as before, it isn't synthesis just because it's juxtaposed either. The statement is correct, radar detection range is proportional to the 4th root of RCS as per equation marked out in source following sentence. See also, if required:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) Also of note, if two separate sentences are individually sourced and accurate to that source, it is not synthesis/OR and complies with example 3 in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Also applicable to complaints against paragraph: Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question

I am happy to include any sourced counter claims, as mentioned by Mztourist, if he can find WP:RS for them.Z07x10 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary by opponent

To analyse the contentious paragraph: "According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. This is the original wording from February that all of Z07x10's later edits seek to support.

Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale is 70% composite and has metallic intakes. This side by side comparison of factual information is Synth when read following the previous sentence.

An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. I'm really not sure what this is trying to say as it is comparing the Typhoon against a completely different, stealthier aircraft.

Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section. I'm also unsure what this is trying to say.

The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection. This is another attempted comparison between the Typhoon and the Rafale (which does have a vertically mounted radar).

In my view all of the above amounts to Synth to support a claim made in a questionable source. User: Z07x10 doesn't present any information that could support the contrary position such as that the Rafale's engine intakes conceal the engine face more efefctively than the Tyhpoon. I certainly don't wish to see this page devolve into a blog of "the Typhoon is steathier because of this" versus "the Rafale is stealthier because of this." Unfortunately that will be the result if the questionable source is supported by this OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I can't agree that two separate sourced statements amount to synthesis, because neither of them amounts to the suggestion of a third point that isn't expressed by either of them, and that is the crucial aspect of this. If you look at the incorrect examples here . There is a third point/opinion being suggested by the crucial words in bold:

"The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be a simple matter to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how easily material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

"The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world."

In the third example it's more complicated but there is still a clear insinuation that the rule broken is not plagiarism and that Jones may have broken another rule relying on one editor's interpretation/OR of a source:

"If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

You can see the clear linkage between the sentences, "practice" -->> "this rule" and the manual "does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead..." It could be acceptably rewritten as:

"Not consulting the original sources is contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. According to the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

There is no longer any editor OR/synthesis although a reader may still perform their own OR/synthesis, which does not count as editor WP:OR.

Now my edit:

"According to the RAF, the Eurofighter's RCS is better than RAF requirements; some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return. Only 15% of the Typhoon's surface is metal, the rest is non-metallic, including the intakes. The Rafale's surface area is 70% composite and it has metallic intakes.

Here the point that the Rafale has a larger RCS is included in the first sourced sentence, the Typhoon's surface area composition is stated in the second point and the Rafale's surface area composition is stated in the third point, without any adjoining commentary linking the two. There is no suggestion that the Rafale has a larger RCS as a third point, because that's already sourced and pointed to in the first sentence. Could the first sourced point be because of the second and third sourced points? Well it could but the editor has not suggested that themselves with any inflammatory text, as shown in bold in the above examples. Any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader and that is impossible to prevent and does not constitute editor OR, as shown in ."

'An apple is a kind of fruit that is eaten by many people. Apples contain fruit sugars, vitamins, water, and fiber. Apples can be eaten raw or cooked. Some people are allergic to eating apples.'

Is the reason that many people eat apples because they contains fruit sugars, since these are sweet? Is it because of the flexibility provided in being able to be eaten raw or cooked? Well it might be but the editor has not suggested this simply due to juxtaposition, any OR/synthesis is on behalf of the reader once again. Wikipedia rules under juxtaposition do not hold an editor accountable for reader OR, only their own OR. It simply tells complainants, as readers, not to perpetrate their own OR and blame it on editors:

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't."

Ultimately it is impossible to write in a way that stops readers thinking and drawing an opinion on the multiple facts presented to them and would we want to anyway? Editors are not responsible for human nature, only their words. Inferring words that aren't there is a complainant problem not an editor problem.

See also :

"The policy gives one example of something that's not SYNTH and says, "The first paragraph is fine, because each of the sentences is carefully sourced." SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it.

If you want to take one source that says "allergic reactions can lead to death" and a second source that says "some people are allergic to apples", and you want to add these up into a new conclusion, "so nobody should eat apples unless they're trying to commit suicide", then there is no possible way to say this without violating SYNTH. It does not matter what grammar or structure you use: introducing your own new idea is prohibited.

On the other hand, if every single idea (considered separately as well as the overall effect) is taken from reliable sources (rather than your own new ideas), then there is no grammar structure or way of expressing these ideas that will make the material violate SYNTH. There are many ways of expressing these concepts that make the article badly written, but bad writing that introduces no novel ideas is bad writing, not a violation of SYNTH."

My actual writing introduces no third point.

Wrt to second complainant point:

"An EADS radar expert calculated the range at which a Typhoon can be detected to be roughly twice that of an F-35 with an identical radar. Detection range is proportional to the 4th root of radar cross section.Z07x10 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)"

Again both sentences are accurate to the source they cite. Being "unsure" of what material is saying is not a reason to cry synthesis/OR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_secondary-school_question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_numerical_summarization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

Wrt third complainant point:

"The Typhoon also has a large swash plate mounted radar which can be tilted away from oncoming aircraft to avoid direct reflection. Some aircraft with smaller fixed radar are vertically mounted yielding a larger reflection."

This statement makes no mention of the Rafale even, the fact that the Rafale has a fixed vertical radar (as per Mztourist comment) is not something that I have mentioned in my edit. If it's a fact anyway then so be it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all

I am happy to include any points, which support other views as per policy, as long as they're reliably sourced.

See  :

"It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view."Z07x10 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The initial sentence makes an assertion regarding the relative radar cross section, and the following sentences present evidence as to why that should be so from sources which make no such comparison. This juxtaposition is clearly intended to reinforce the initial questionably-sourced claim - which amounts to synthesis. Incidentally, the article cannot cite material uploaded to Photobucket or docdrod, and such material shouldn't even be linked on Wikipedia talk pages since it appears to be a breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I gained permission before uploading it. The reason I didn't link the original is because in a year's time it may disappear. I could use the wayback archive method instead if it's better for you. Juxtaposition/grammar does not constitute synthesis, only words do. My actual words introduce no third point as per wikipedia policy. The only OR/synthesis is your brain taking several sourced facts and drawing a conclusion yourself. That is not OR/synthesis as per the policy guidelines. It may help to look through the examples it provides, which I've taken great time to outline aboveZ07x10 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your say-so wrt copyright is not enough - we need something public from the copyright holder. And of course juxtapositions can imply meaning and constitute synthesis. This looks highly problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, issues regarding copyright aren't a question of 'what is better for me' - they are Wikipedia policy. As for your assertion regarding juxtaposition, I am not going to get dragged into a facile argument over semantics - the later sentences are clearly and unambiguously intended to provide evidence for the initial questionably-sourced statement, and are drawn from sources which make no such comparison - this is synthesis, since it is you not the sources in question that are making the comparison. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have changed the reference to http://web.archive.org/web/20140419074552/http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdf.

I am stating what the policy actually says wrt synthesis/OR? I have made no comparison, I have stated two sourced facts side-by-side, it is only an editor's words that can count as synthesis. Providing evidence on its own is not synthesis. As per the juxtaposition article on the apple example, the same material is already included elsewhere in the project anyway. Is the apple widely eaten because it contains fruit sugars or because of its flexibility to be eaten cooked and raw? Maybe, but the actual words don't say that. No additional suggestion of any unsupported points has been provided by my text. The original point was made in an independent study by experts at by the institute of peace and conflict studies (not by myself), who study and publish reports on a variety of things:

http://www.ipcs.org/

http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR178-IPCSAnnual.pdf

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Presenting 'sourced facts side-by-side' in order to provide evidence for something they don't individually state is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reference to the actual wikipedia policy and examples to support your opinions. The only evidence they provide is for what they actually state, I have not said anything else. If a reader does believe they provide evidence for something else then that is in their hands and is not editor OR/synthesis. The policy is very clear on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_a_matter_of_grammar

"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it."Z07x10 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said precisely nothing about grammatical structure. And the sources you are citing together to provide evidence that the Typhoon has a smaller radar cross-section than the Rafale do not individually state this - making the combination a clear and unequivocal synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have asked you to cite where the policy says that this is synthesis to support your opinion. Under the policy and examples, an editor can only be held accountable for non-neutral wording in juxtaposed sentences when citing sources that suggests a third point not in any source. My wording is neutral, every point in isolation is NPOV. The point that the Typhoon has a smaller RCS than the Rafale is already stated in a source therefore it is not a third point as per the definition of synthesis in the policy, and my wording does not highlight the other points as proving the first point let alone a third point. Just because points appear to support another point that does not prohibit them from inclusion, otherwise in say the String Theory article, an editor wouldn't be able to cite sources that support or oppose part of String Theory (but not the whole) in case a reader/complainant infers that they are using this as synthesis to support/disprove the whole theory, even though there words are neutral and suggest no such thing. So until someone proves the whole of String Theory, anything in the article, besides an overview, would be synthesis based on the opinion you've provided here. This would make for a terrible encyclopedia.Z07x10 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor can be held accountable for non-neutral editing anywhere. And as for your source, what it actually says is " According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter". 'May appear'. The material in question doesn't even support the initial sentence (and is too equivocal to be much use). And as has been pointed out on the article talk page, it isn't normal practice to include comparisons with other aircraft in Wikipedia articles - and doing so on the basis of a single source making a vague comparison is entirely unjustified. I have no idea why this debate has been permitted to go on for so long - regardless of WP:OR issues the source is misrepresented, and the content is undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You are yet to cite a single reference in the policy applicable to my content that supports your opinion. The point sourcing that reference on RCS in the edit text says, "some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return" which is a fair representation of what source says. The source fits the description of a reliable independent secondary source. The edit text says exactly what is in the source:

"According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter. While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible. "

It is also incorrect to say that it is not normal practice to include fighter comparisons on wikipedia (see MiG-15 vs F-86) .

It would be nice to get some policy-supported opinions from other people, who understand the policyZ07x10 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy which justifies including this vague comparison in the article in the first place. A comparison which the source you cite notes is only actually valid for an unarmed aircraft (something you omitted to mention). Though why a source which uses terms like 'reasonably invisible' should be considered RS for technical matters is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please source the opinion that policy doesn't justify this inclusion? Actually your other assertion - which definitely fits the description of OR/synthesis on your part - isn't quite the case either. If you read the source it says the Typhoon has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs, providing a well-armed aircraft for interception roles that is 'reasonably invisible'. Clearly it depends on the load, but I am happy to include the full text in that paragraph if you feel it's better:

"While both fighters lose their masking abilities if fully loaded up with external munitions, the Eurofighter at least has the ability to carry 4 semi-conformal BVRAAMs i.e. a well armed air defence or interception patrol, which is reasonably invisible."

Again, the IPCS (Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies) is an independent body of expert researchers part of a wider group of independent research bodies, so there is no reason to suggest that their comparison lacks credibility.

"Partners and Networks

The Institute closely interacts with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the three wings of the Indian Armed Forces – the army, navy, and the air force – the academic community, and the media.

The Institute also organises track-II dialogues involving the strategic community from other countries on select issues such as Nuclear Security, India-Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Water Security.

The IPCS has partnered with the Brookings Institute, Sandia National Lab, IISS, China Research Forum, and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, among others, in the past.

Furthermore, the IPCS is part of regional and international networks. In South Asia, the Institute is the founder member of the Consortium of South Asian Think Tanks (COSATT), a network of leading think tanks in the region; the Strategic Studies Network (SSN) led by the Near East South Asia Center (NESA) involving think tanks and scholars from North Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia; the Council for Asian Transnational Threat Research (CATR) including experts and Institutes from South Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, Korea, Japan and the United States; and the GIBSA network involving the Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP), Berlin; Centro de Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (CEBRI), Rio de Janeiro; and the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Pretoria."

If ever there was a case of an independent reliable secondary source, this it.

Furthermore these sourced points improve the article by providing interesting sourced comparisons, surrounding RCS, aircraft construction and the Typhoon's swash-plate mounted radar, so over-zealous enforcement of policy and opinion shouldn't prevent their inclusion.Z07x10 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be independent - I don't however see why it should be seen as particularly reliable for technical matters, given the vagueness of what it actually says. Furthermore, the source in question says nothing whatsoever about the RAF. In fact you cite no source at all for the first half-sentence of the contested material - you are juxtaposing an unsourced assertion about the RAF with a source discussing procurement in India. I can see no reasonable interpretation of the combined material that doesn't suggest that you are trying to argue a case from disparate sources. A case that actually has little direct bearing on the subject of the article, since it isn't about the Rafale.

There is nothing vague about what it states, that is only opinion. As established above they interact with a variety of experts, including research scholars, the Indian government, airforce, navy and army as well as a large variety of other experts, so their sources are likely to be of a high standard, especially since India recently compared the two aircraft in the MRCA tender. Their other partners include:

http://www.sandia.gov/

https://www.iiss.org/

http://www.kas.de/wf/en/

http://www.brookings.edu/

http://cosatt.org/

http://nesa-center.org/

http://strategicstudiesnetwork.org/

So their research cannot be described as vague, although given the nature of military research and diplomatic angles, they may not identify all their sources.

Now going back to Mztourist's angle that the construction comparison intends to support the radar cross-section comparison, the first source already makes this assessment, so there is no third point and therefore no synthesis to be alleged even ignoring the neutral language used in the edit:

"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars. According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter."

For further reference :

"Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."

Yes, the first bit of the sentence wrt RAF requirements, and indeed the first sentence itself, was included by another editor and the source for exceeding RAF requirements IIRC was from a Typhoon forum and hence the source was dismissed as unreliable. The edit was left as the requirements laid out in document SR(A)-425 were for quite a high maximum frontal RCS of 1m^2 and it is fairly well accepted that nearly all modern fighters are below this, although I would have trouble supporting that assertion, so I am happy to remove the statement about RAF requirements, even though it is likely true, I can't support it.

All information in that paragraph pertains to Typhoon radar signature reduction and supported comparisons (as per Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article). Z07x10 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So you believe that a vaguely worded claim in a disputed source is still RS? If this claim had any weight it would be carried in numerous more reputable sources that this. I am frankly amazed that you still try to argue that there is no synthesis here. You are still essentially saying the Typhoon has a higher % of composites than the Rafale and so it is stealthier.Mztourist (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

1. That is an assertion without substance. The statement in the source is very clear - that some sources have estimated the Rafale's RCS to be 4 times larger than the Typhoon - and the source, as evidenced above liaises with subject matter experts and is independent and is therefore a reliable secondary source. The fact that you dispute it in isolation without supporting reasoning is irrelevant as you are not a subject matter expert.

2. Estimates from such expert sources, although not conclusive, are often provided by advanced specialist software, e.g. and are therefore not dismissible as 'vague'. This also applies to .

3. The claim is supported by other sources but with slightly less specific wording, as already evidenced above:

"Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."

4. The original source already presents the % of composites as a reason for the Typhoon having a lower RCS, therefore there is no third unsupported point being made/suggested/implied and hence no synthesis, even if my actual wording in presenting the second point wasn't neutral, which it is.

Synthesis definition:

"Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

Source text:

"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."

In this case the source already presents A and B as a reason for C, so stating composite percentages in my edit can't possibly imply anything new or original, even if I did present it as the reason for the lower RCS, which I didn't.Z07x10 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this argument has gone on long enough. The sole "source" for the Rafale having four times the RCS of Typhoon is a single throwaway sentence in a paper written from an financial and economic standpoint; and it itself merely says "some sources". So, the assertion is not reliably sourced. The paper referred to (the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies paper) then mentions composite versus metal construction in a single sentence, barely an aside, but this hardly constitutes proper discussion. The paper might be reliable from the standpoint of the policies of the Indian Government, but not from an engineering or technical standpoint. So we are left with the dispute that the two sentences which follow this assertion in the article, when combined with it, constitute synthesis. This forum has members who are well-versed in the WP:SYN policies, who presumably were not previously familiar with the article or its interminable edit-warring. They instantly agreed that the three sentences constituted synthesis. So a lone editor has carried on the argument, posting replies which are WP:TLDR, 90 percent irrelevant and demand reversed burden of proof that the policies actually mean what they state unequivocally. I would seek some binding decision which would resolve this disruptive dispute and impose sanctions, preferably a topic ban, for continued disruption and attempts to game the system. HLGallon (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

1. As mentioned already the source liaises with subject matter experts and doesn't analyse from a purely financial/economic standpoint (as the Rafale was the cheaper MRCA option for India anyway) who include parties who've recently assessed the two aircraft. Some of their sources are likely militarily and diplomatically sensitive, so aren't quoted. The wording of the statement in the source can't be used as proof that the source isn't reliable.

2. Often such analysis reports are required to be of a given word length and therefore summarise the critical points. This does not make it unreliable.

3. The source liaises with the Indian government, airforce, navy and army, who have recently assessed the aircraft against the Rafale. It also liases with technical laboratories like Sandia and other specialist networks.. As mentioned previously sophisticated software exists for estimating radar cross-section, so the 'estimate' being referenced is likely a long way from a 'finger in the air' given the resources and vastness of their network AND is backed up by another source in slightly different wording.:

"Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon's shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production."

4. The two references that follow it focus on composite percentage only, however the source for the first point already states composite % as a reason for the lower RCS:

Source text:

"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."

Therefore no mention of composite percentage by an editor thereafter, even if stated non-neutrally (which it isn't) can possibly constitute OR/synthesis because the first source has already stated the point you're accusing them of synthesising.

5. So far no complainant has backed up their opinion with policy.

6. Perhaps you should have read my responses because then I wouldn't have to keep explaining why it can't possibly be synthesis.

7. This is the OR/synthesis noticeboard, so don't use this late opportunity to dispute the reliability of the source, when that wasn't your original complaint.Z07x10 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If contributors consider a source to be of questionable reliability, they are entirely free to say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed but that isn't a subject for the OR/synthesis noticeboard and the previous DRN didn't find a problem with the source. I have already pointed out why the source is reliable due to the nature of their work/partners and if people had actually read my response and followed the links they would know this. I have also shown another source that supports the same point in slightly different wording without giving a precise RCS (radar cross-section) difference, it simply says the Typhoon's RCS is less. I have also clearly explained why there is no point being synthesised because the alleged synthesised point (composite % being a reason for the RCS difference) is already stated in the source for the first point! I don't see that there are any valid complaints left at this stage. Surely we can at least agree that it can't be synthesis and close this debate?Z07x10 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see no evidence that anyone agrees any such thing - to the contrary, everyone other than you who has commented seems to see the content as problematic. Though I suspect that less in the way of repetitive walls of text might have attracted more comment... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two Comments

As at least one editor has pointed out, the statements made by the proponent of the contested argument are too long, difficult to read. Can he or she make the point in one short paragraph? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The original complaint was one of synthesis, specifically that the mention of composite % for the two aircraft in 2nd and 3rd sentence of the content is acting as synthesised support for the RCS difference in the first sourced sentence in that paragraph. However the source already makes this exact point, stating composite % as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore there is no synthesis and this is not an issue for this board.

Source text:http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf

"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."Z07x10 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the contentious language was "Some sources have estimated the Rafale's radar return to be four times greater than the Eurofighter's return." and then the OR/synth that followed to try to support this claim, rather than this new quote, the reliability of which I question below. Mztourist (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Second, the underlying issue is whether a reliable source has engaged in the synthesis, in which case we may quote it. If an editor has engaged in the synthesis, it is original research, and the argument that it was original research is why this question was brought here. If an unreliable source has engaged in the synthesis, then the requirement for reliable sources is a reason to exclude the synthesis. It appears that the issue now may be the reliability of the source (compounded by the length of the posts). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely that is not an issue for the original research noticeboard. Complaints about unreliable sources should be dealt with elsewhere, although in this case I maintain that the source is reliable and there is a second reliable source making a similar assertion.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htmZ07x10 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also the issue (being discussed on the article talk page) as to whether the article should making such detailed comparisons between the particular aircraft concerned at all. One is the subject of the article. The other one isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, that isn't an issue for the OR noticeboard, although there is a precedent for this in the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 article, which makes comparisons between the F-86 and MiG-15. As it is, the comparison in the Eurofighter Typhoon article is very short (2 lines) and as long as editors can provide WP:RS there isn't a problem, since reliably sourced aircraft comparisons are few and far between.Z07x10 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The comparison of the MiG-15 and F-86 is clearly relevant to the article concerned - they fought head-to-head, and their relative merits in combat have been the subject of much in-depth discussion in multiple sources. Which can clearly not be said about any discussion concerning the relative RCS of the Eurofighter and the Rafale, give the lack of sources actually discussing it. If it had been discussed extensively, there would have been no need to start citing sources which don't actually make any comparison. And no, the lack of sources for something isn't a reason to include it in an article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Typhoon and Rafale were developed by two rival European manufacturers, during the same time period. The manufacturers split during the early days of the EFA Project. There has been a lot of speculation about their relative merits and rival bids, so naturally there is an interest, which warrants some coverage.Z07x10 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There clearly hasn't been 'a lot of speculation' about the relative RCS of the two aircraft, given the paucity of sources actually discussing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Except we do have two sources and a third source where an EADS radar expert compares detection range with an F-35.Z07x10 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What are the two sources you are referring to? What relevance is a comparison between the detection range of Typhoon compared to the F-35? While there may have been 'a lot of speculation' about the relative RCS' particularly among fans of either the Typhoon or Rafale, AndyTheGrump is completely correct that there is a lack of WP:RS on the issue, which is why you have had to resort to the dubious Indian source and OR/Synth. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Having determined that there is no synthesis (see source text) can we close this down, as I think we can agree that it is not an OR issue anymore, whatever remaining complaints there may be?Z07x10 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No such determination has been made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The original complaint was one of synthesis, specifically that the mention of composite % for the two aircraft in 2nd and 3rd sentence of the content is acting as synthesised support for the RCS difference in the first sourced sentence in that paragraph. However the source for the first sentence already makes this exact point, stating composite % as a reason for the RCS difference, therefore there is no synthesis by mentioning composite % and this is not an issue for this board. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Source text:http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf

"While most of the Eurofighter is made up of composites, the Rafale in addition to having a fundamentally unstealthy curvaceous layout is also overwhelmingly metal, making it much more visible to radars."Z07x10 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I note this new quote, which is contradicted by the figures Z07x10 has provided that the Typhoon is 85% composite, while the Rafale is 70% composite. Clearly the Rafale is not "overwhelmingly metal" and so the source is unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that is a classic example of a non-expert misinterpreting a source written by experts and taking a statement out of context. Everything is relative and depends on radar perspective, and compared to the Typhoon it is overwhelming metallic when viewed from the critical frontal, side and bottom perspectives because both the fixed vertical radar, wing, tail and canard leading edges, intakes and part of the fuselage sides are metallic, as is the DDM-NG case on the tail. The metallic intakes and fuselage are the main problem because they massively increase radar reflective from all angles bar the rear. The Typhoon has a tilted radar, carbon fibre composite intakes and fuselage sides and no metal case at the top of the tail. The wing root leading edge is also glass reinforced plastic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg/220px-Materials_of_the_Dassault_Rafale.svg.png

http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/sigmafour1/media/TyphoonConstr_zpslgixpxjr.png.html from http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf radar assertion http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/Eurofighter_World.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It should again be noted that this is the OR noticeboard and source reliability is outside the scope of this board and the complaint you raised. With your original complaint failed perhaps you should WP:DTS. Seeing as you have now lost/given up the synthesis case, perhaps we can close this debate. If you still feel the need, you can take this up on the RS noticeboard but I feel you will lose because there's a second pay-per-view source saying the same thing.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htmZ07x10 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Source reliability is not out of scope of any discussion concerning Wikipedia article content. And so far, it has not been established that anyone has 'lost' any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It very much has in terms of the synthesis case and this is the wrong board for discussing RS.Z07x10 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 what does "overwhelmingly" mean to you? Do you honestly believe that by having 15% less composites overall than the Typhoon, that makes the Rafale "overwhelmingly metal"? I would also point out that globalsecurity.org is not regarded as WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Without stating a percentage it means nothing. The only thing being conveyed there is that the Rafale has a far higher percentage of metal covering its surface. From a side-on perspective it certainly is more metal than non-metal because of the intakes and fuselage metal.Z07x10 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A Summary, and Thoughts to Go Forward

It appears that one editor, User:Z07x10, the proponent, wants to include the comparison language. Multiple editors want to exclude the comparison language. The first argument was that the comparison language was synthesis amounting to original research. The proponent has, in my opinion, established that another source has provided the language. However, there are multiple reasons for excluding the comparison language. Some have said that the source is biased, because the source was trying to sell the Eurofighter. Others have said that the language is not necessary in the article, which is about the Eurofighter, not about a comparison of the Eurofighter with other aircraft. It appears that there is a consensus against the inclusion of the language, just not a consensus on why to exclude the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several ways to go forward. First, the proponent can accept that there is consensus against including the language. I don't think he wants to do that, but it would be the easiest way forward. Second, he can, as he suggested, go to the reliable source noticeboard. That isn't likely to help, because it may address the source issues, but there are other arguments against the language. Third, he can request formal mediation. That is the last and most heavy-weight option for trying to get compromise. It will require that a majority of the editors agree to mediation. Fourth, and this is the only binding approach, someone, either a proponent or an opponent, can publish a neutrally worded Request for Comments, and the RFC can be publicized on various Wikiprojects such as military history, to get the involvement of as many previously outside editors as possible. So I suggest: Either Z07x10 can acknowledge that he is in the minority about the language, or someone can file a neutrally worded RFC. If anyone wants help in wording the RFC neutrally, I will help. That is the extent of my involvement, and maybe of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for your input, unfortunately if past experience is any indicator and based on his comments above, User:Z07x10 will continue to try to win this issue at another forum despite the consensus against him. Mztourist (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll be damned if content should boil down to a matter of cliche opinion and mob mentality minus any rationale or relation to actual project policy. There is absolutely no wikipedia policy against comparative content. User:Mztourist has stated that the source is not reliable, therefore surely it should be down to him to take out a complaint on the RS noticeboard and say why. Personally I think the fact that there is another source widely used in wikipedia and widely respected elsewhere backing up the first source, that there is a very strong case for saying that it is reliable.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

There are over 500 uses of this source in wikipedia already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=globalsecurity.org&go=Go

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/history.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSecurity.org

There are also over 500 uses of ipcs.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go

User:Mztourist and his colleagues lodged a complaint of synthesis, he agreed to have that matter resolved here and he lost. He should simply WP:DTS rather than go on a fishing expedition for alternative excuses.Z07x10 (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. Consensus here is clearly against inclusion of the comparison, for multiple reasons. And no, nobody has 'lost' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So if the site is invaded en masse by a flat Earth cult and they outnumber the few critics monitoring the issue, wikipedia will state that the Earth is flat? That is sheer lunacy. Sorry but I've never subscribed to the belief that a million monkeys hammering on a typewriter for a million years will eventually write a great novel. The synthesis argument was lost as clear as clear can be.Z07x10 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 you should read what Robert McClenon has said above, there is a consensus against inclusion of the language, if anyone needs to WP:DTS it is you, but as with the Typhoon's maximum speed, I know that you won't. Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So now you've realised that the source is reliable and are going with something completely intangible that can't be proven wrong, like 'language'. There is no policy against reliably-sourced comparisons.Z07x10 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to research what wikipedia policy on consensus actually is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

"Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

So a consensus that doesn't respect policies and guidelines, i.e. yours, is not a valid consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That has to be the most bizarre interpretation of Wikipedia policy I've seen. You are apparently claiming that your personal opinion constitutes a 'consensus'. Utter garbage... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No I'm stating that 'a consensus' without sound reasoning supported by the wikipedia policy and guidelines is actually just a vote and not a consensus, as described in WP:consensus policy.

A. There was no synthesis - Robert has pointed this out.

B. Another source supports the questioned source. Both are used over 500 times each in wikipedia and have excellent credentials, hence they are WP:RS

C. There is no policy against reliably sourced comparisons.

Hence 'the vote' has no grounding in policy and therefore doesn't fit the description of WP:consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Z07x10's claim that "the previous DRN didn't find a problem with the source" is factually untrue. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 78#Eurofighter Typhoon. The DRN case was archived without being resolved, and no determination was made concerning any problems with sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, the complaint raised in the DRN was that the content contained synthesis, so it was moved here, however Robert McClenon has agreed that the source makes the exact case I was accused of synthesizing. Then the fishing expedition for other excuses began. The protagonists never mentioned anything about the reliability of the source in the DRN until it was pointed out that it made the same case I was accused of synthesising (even though I'm frankly not guilty of that either).Z07x10 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of the material, and no amount of facile Wikilawyering is going to change that fact. One person cannot constitute a 'consensus', by definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, Robert McClenon's opinion on whether synthesis is involved is of course welcome - but he has no final say in the matter (and isn't asserting that he has). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Without sound basis in the policy and guidelines, even a million people cannot constitute WP:consensus.Z07x10 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, so where's the synthesis in mentioning % composites if the first source already states that as a reason for the lower RCS?http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdfZ07x10 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One person cannot represent a consensus - and so far nobody but you has suggested that the multiple people arguing that the material should not be included are doing so contrary to policies or guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made an edit inline with several reliable sources that doesn't breach any line of wikipedia policy whatsoever. If it has, please do point it out. If it hasn't WP:DTS.Z07x10 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:OR etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - I added content on the material I found, it is not the responsibility of one contributor to research all points of view.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view

WP:WEIGHT - I added two reliable sources supporting the finding. I can't find any reliable sources supporting a counter finding. If you can, be my guest and include it.

WP:RS - There are also over 500 uses of ipcs.org and globalsecurity.org in wikipedia and their credentials are exceptional:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSecurity.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ipcs.org&go=Go

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/overview/praise.htm

http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/

WP:OR - Yeah, no, that one's closed. The source makes the exact case I'm accused of synthesising. The fact you keep bringing it back makes me feel you're not very neutral and are just here to annoy people. Please state the point I synthesised.Z07x10 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I will note one core policy statement that I think highly relevant given the above... from WP:Verifiability: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."

The fact that some bit of information may be verifiable does not mean we must include the bit of information in an article. It is clear that multiple editors agree that this particular bit of information should be omitted (yes, z07x10 there is consensus on that), and only one editor who thinks it should be included. Continuing to push for inclusion is simply a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding verifiability, and in particular the reliability of the sources being cited, it should be noted that the ipcs source states that "According to some estimates the Rafale may appear 4 times bigger on the radar compared to the Eurofighter", whereas globalsecurity.org gives a figure of 1 m² for the Rafale, and 0.5 m² for the Typhoon. [1] I think we can thus safely conclude at that at least one of them must be wrong. Though frankly, if the figure globalsecurity.org gives for the F-35 (0.005 m²) is correct (which is of course open to question, along with the other data), I suspect that our readers might think we were comparing the Typhoon with the wrong aircraft, or at least omitting a comparison which may be seen as more significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One More Time

Okay. I personally think that the question of original research has been answered. Some editors may disagree. That doesn't matter. What is clear is that there is consensus against the inclusion of the comparison language. I don't see a consensus opinion as to why not to include the language, but I do see a consensus not to include the language. The proponent of the language, User:Z07x10, appears to be saying that the language has to be included unless a single reason based on Wikipedia policy can be cited for excluding it. I disagree. He or she appears to be saying, then, that in the absence of a single consensus reason for excluding the language, WP:ILIKEIT applies. I am willing to listen to a new argument for including the comparison language, but it appears that there is a consensus against including it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 is entitled to go to the reliable source noticeboard to ask about the sources, but that won't address other questions, such as weight and relevance, and will probably just continue to annoy those editors who are already against the language. I suggest that a previously uninvolved editor close this thread because it is getting nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that Z07x10 go back to the article talk page, and, if he really wants the comparison language included, prepare a neutrally worded Request for Comments. I am willing to help with the wording to be sure that it is neutral, only asking whether or not to include the language. Arguments for and against the language can go after the statement of the question, not in it. It would be even easier if Z07x10 backs off and agrees that there is consensus against including the language, but, if Z07x10 wants the language, an RFC is the only productive approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have gone to the RFM noticeboard because ultimately it will end up there anyway.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFMZ07x10 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparison language on aircraft articles is not new, nor against policy. Ultimately the content provides more reliable sources, which always improve an article. Other POVs on the same or other aspects with WP:RS would be welcomed in that article. I don't think I've heard a single argument based on policy (or anything else) as to why not to include the content. It seems to be a huge case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Z07x10 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense - though I should point out (Z07x10 having failed to do so for some reason), that Z07x10 has initiated Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well what exactly would we RFC on? OR, RS, language or whatever happens to be the next flavour of the day? If Robert McClenon wishes to make an RFC based on the RFM above, fine. I can't help but think integrity has been lost here and it's simply become a matter of gang size, completely defunct of policy grounding.Z07x10 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:Z07x10 has filed a Request for Mediation, requesting formal mediation, and, as noted there, has been selective in listing editors. I do not personally understand what he or she expects to be gained by formal mediation, because I see no grounds for compromise, and mediation is a facilitated compromise process. Either the comparison language is to be included, or it is to be excluded. I think that formal mediation will be a waste of time, because it will just repeat what has already been said both in informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard and here. Z07x10 asks: "Well what exactly would we RFC on? OR, RS, language ..." I tried to propose that the RFC be simply whether to include the comparison language, not any specific reason to include it or to exclude it, but whether to put that language into the article. That is what an RFC could decide. However, since Z07x10 has requested mediation, the request should go forward, and either be accepted or be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that an editor with no previous involvement close this thread, and we can let the Request for Mediation run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Request for Mediation doesn't seem to have been listed by the bot for the purpose. There may be a problem with the bot, but the bot does appear otherwise to be working properly. There may be a problem because there was a previous declined Request for Mediation with the same title and topic. This isn't the first time that Z07x10 has requested mediation on this article, and that may be confusing the bot, which, after all, is only a bot. Assistance from the human members of the Mediation Committee has been requested, so stay tuned off and on to this channel. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have listed it again, I may have overwrote the old one through a misunderstanding of the system - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2Z07x10 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes and References

References

List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom

I've started an RfC about List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom. The article has no sources and includes lots of living people. It's not clear what the criteria for inclusion in the list are. The RfC hasn't attracted comments from any additional editors, so input would be welcome. I've also flagged this on the BLP noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)