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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Quoting number of Google News hits

Is it original research to state "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" using a Google News url? Eg using this link to support "PolitiFact has been quoted 185 thousand times". Stickee (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Google's result counting is too variable to quote exact figures, but a statement such as "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times" would conform to WP:Primary as

1. a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and
2. free of interpretation.

Batternut (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an RS question at least in part. Many of those hits will be to the actual news site, others to who knows what, but meaningless. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 9 April 2017 (

No as your search results also comes upon with pages from PolitiFact, google will search for instances of the term, not how they are used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: incorrect, the search term "-site:politifact.com" in the example given removes those hits. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apart fro this, self referencing [1]Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That page quotes Politifact without linking to it. I don't see the problem...? Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course as with all Goggle hits, what they sau they gave found and the number of hits you get on the last page differs, the last pages says "Page 82 of about 158,000 results"Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This used to confuse me, though now I realise that Google gives at most 1000 results, and usually less, but it doesn't mean they have given you all possible hits. I haven't seen a full explanation from Google, I'd think it would probably be horribly technical - I suspect they start with the first 1000 contenders from the index, subsequent filters leave the 820 that you actually want, but thousands more contenders remain un-returned. Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

maybe, but it does not alter the fact that we cannot be sure that all the results are relevant (as you say "what we were looking "). This makes it hard to think of this as meeting verifiabilty, it may change based upon some random factor of googles (in fact it has it now returners "Page 82 of about 303,000 results".Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But "quoted thousands of times" was still verified by your query - true for about 303,000, about 185,000, or and about 158,000 results. For figures over 1000, whenever Google says "about x results", I would only describe as "quoted for hundreds / thousands / maybe tens or hundreds of thousands / millions of times". Batternut (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If we could actually verify 303,000 or 158,000, "thousands" would work just the same. But if Google only shows 810-820, that's all we're sure of, and that sure isn't one thousand. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

There is a bias in mentioning how many times something has been cited, because it implies the source is important. But we don't know that from the cite count, so it is implied synthesis. If a source has been cited x number of times is significant, then that should be found in reliable sources in a reliable secondary source. TFD (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Because "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources" (per WP:GOOGLEHITS) I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance, especially in the arena of modern news media where being heard and being echoed is more important than being right. Alas perhaps, but the importance is not implied, it is measured even if only to an approximate order of magnitude. Batternut (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have just written a justification for synthesis. But the policy remains against it and would have to be changed to allow the observation. I don't know what you mean by "the importance is not implied, it is measured." You just said, "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources." In other words a higher count implies greater importance, which is the only reason to include the count in the first place. TFD (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see it like giving book or record sales figures, eg 100 million copies of the Bible sell each year, The Doors sold 4,190,457 albums, or even California Girls reached No. 3 etc. Do these claims synthetically imply success, or are they a measure of it? Batternut (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bible figure is attributed to reliable secondary sources: The Economist and Russell Ash. Stickee (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but primary/secondary source is not actually pertinent to TFD's synthesis argument above. Batternut (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. We expect secondary sources to perform synthesis. If secondary sources consistently mention that the Bible sells 100 million copies per year, then we include it per "Balancing aspects." Reporters, historians and social scientists have their own criteria in deciding that is or is not significant. Our criteria is whatever they consider to be significant and we do not second guess their judgment. That is of value to readers because they want articles to present what is found in reliable secondary sources, not information that reliable secondary sources omit. If they want to know how many hits a news site has on Google, then they can do a Google search. TFD (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

An odd thing I've found about cite counts is that sometimes as you click through you'll find the count reduces dramatically. I did miss the bit in the search that eliminated the site, useful that, but Google News will still throw up some odd sources. Google Scholar is much worse. From the name you'd expect scholarly sources, but it also throws up woowoo. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The second click eliminates duplications, but it will ask you if you want to include them. Some of the sources are of course better than others, which is probably why it is a poor guide. I notice in the PolitiFact enquiry, the first page shows it has been quoted in PJ Media, the Daily Caller and NewsBusters, and they all trash it. You need expertise in journalism to interpret this or save time and just accept that it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So where in WP:SYNTH is there distinction between primary and secondary source? Does it really matter which reliable source gives us "The Doors sold 4,190,457" or "100 mill Bibles sold", so long as we are satisfied with its likely truth? Reliability is important, which is why it is specified in WP:Synth, but primary/secondary is not, which is why primary/secondary is not mentioned in WP:Synth. Batternut (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---
It seems to me that the synthesis issues above do not have any policy basis, at least as far as stated in WP:SYNTH. For the following reasons:

(a) primary source is good enough - WP:SYNTH does not require secondary source,

(b) WP:SYNTH only talks about combining material; this claim is supported by a single part of one source,

(c) the claim is a statistic of a type found all over wikipedia, and "SYNTH is not ubiquitous", per WP:What_SYNTH_is_not.

Either of (b) or (c) above would mean, independent of all other factors, that the claim does not fall foul of WP:SYNTH, and I submit that both are true. IMHO. Batternut (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"of a type found all over wikipedia" I can't say I've seen anyone use Google News cite counts attributed to a search page before. Stickee (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that not an RS concern, rather than OR/synthesis? Batternut (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---
The discussion so far seems to me to amount to:

1. Synthesis does not apply.
2. Claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" is not verifiable given the approximate and variable nature of the source.
3. Claim "News site X has been quoted hundreds (or thousands) of times" is verifiable if Google News is considered reliable.

So, is this discussion the place to consider the reliability question, or should that go to WP:RSN? Or have I missed something? Batternut (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be both an OR and RS concern, since when you're performing OR there's no way concrete way to judge reliability of what you've conducted. Stickee (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Happily anybody can hit Google with the same query and get a result that justifies the claim. That's a primary source for you! Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, sorry for my late reply. The synthesis is implicit. As you said, "I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance." Inclusion of the numbers implies that PolitiFact is important. That's what you are trying to convey whether you say it explicitly or merely imply it, by combining two facts: the number of hits and the implicit fact that a high number of hits is an indication of importance. TFD (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The second "implicit fact" of your argument is not a fact, it is an interpretation. Most statistics are subject to interpretations such as "more is better" (eg record sales), "less is better" (crime rates), it's what makes them interesting. Your view means the quoting of most statistics produces synthesis - quite possibly, but we do generally allow statistics! @The Four Deuces: Batternut (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is implicit synthesis in which facts we choose to report, which is why "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. Note the following article on VDARE's website: "Whites Down To 10% Of World Population By 2060— Does It Matter?" Citing stats has implicit synthesis so we don't cite stats we would not expect to find in reliable sources about the subject. We're not here to provide our personal takes on things, just to report what is in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The extreme VDARE page is an ad absurdum case - a closer example is the Fox News article claim "94,700,000 US households ... receive the Fox News Channel". That would count as "implicit synthesis" by the definition proposed above, but I think it's acceptable - because the proposed "implicit synthesis" does not correspond to policy in wp:Synth. The Fox News claim is actually covered by SYNTH is not ubiquitous. Regarding NPOV/Balancing aspects (WP:BALASP), that can only be decided in the context of a whole article - I don't think it helps evaluate whether a specific claim is OR. Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are missing my point. The statement that Fox News has 94M viewers is taken from a secondary source that ranks the networks.[2] Indeed it is implicit synthesis, but that's okay, because it is synthesis by editors that is prohibited. Obviously we need writers of secondary sources to determine what is important.

The significance of VDARE is that they are also presenting stats with implicit synthesis. It is not a reductio ad absurdum. If editors are free to choose which stats to add based on their personal assessment of their importance then they can use them to promote their personal views of topics. TFD (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That VDARE page combines badly-referenced long-term forecasts with highly tendentious interpretations - neither "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", nor free of interpretation as required by WP:Primary. Which particular VDARE statement(s) are actually relevant here? Batternut (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Time to close this discussion! When closing, please bare in mind:

• The OP's claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" got no support.
• The topic discussed was claim "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times".
  • arguments against it were: it's WP:SYNTH because giving a cite count implies importance; Google estimates are considered not verifiable, making an RS concern.
  • arguments for it were: WP:Primary is allowable; there's no combining of A and B to imply C; "implied synthesis" is a novel concept outside WP:SYNTH; stats are ubiquitous; only the magnitude of Google's estimate is being used, which is stable.

Batternut (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Synth?

Is a table like this one synth? No source connects all these quotes to each other. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem so. Might be better to stick to what secondary sources say about it, in paragraph form. Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Many secondary sources connect these quotes together. For example, this book [3] threads most of these sources together. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy, Sagecandor, and Oncenawhile: Has the issue been resolved? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality

This is about an editor crying WP:OR at [4] while himself/herself doing at [5] and [6] the very thing he/she claims to abhor. Please chime in. He/she cannot eat his/her cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources because original research is prohibited inside Wikipedia. It is prohibited any use of the Bible, as a WP:PRIMARY source, in order to make points which are not immediately obvious, but rely instead upon interpretation (exegesis). E.g. "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold" can safely be verified to the Bible. But "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold, which is bad, because 666 is Devil's number" is not allowed to be verified to the Bible, but its inclusion could only be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of a primary source can take various forms. It can be going beyond the literal meaning, as in your example. It can also involve making judgments about significance of a particular passage, for example judging that it is pertinent to the topic of the article, when there is room for disagreement, or deciding which passages to select from a wider range of options. For example, if an editor decided that Bible should consist of quotes about stoning and putting cities to the sword, that would be OR. It can also involve synthetic statements which require generalization. If there's disagreement about use of a primary source, it should ideally be resolved by citing a non-primary source. Eperoton (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to quibble with your Bible example, Eperoton. Just including quotes about stoning and putting cities to the sword is problematic ... but the policy it violates is NPOV, not NOR. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It violates NPOV inasmuch as it does not reflect how the subject is treated in RSs, and it violates NOR inasmuch as it reflects the editor's own framing of the primary source. The connection to NOR is more than a formal question in cases of primary sources for which no secondary sources exist, and so a NPOV treatment is impossible to verify. A common case is BLPs where someone wants to compile a list of objectionable things said or written by the subject directly from the primary sources. This is a policy violation even if there are no RSs to establish an NPOV perspective on those quotes. Eperoton (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

BoxOfficeMojo "Total Lifetime Worldwide Gross" - "Production Budget" > 0 = "commercial success"?

Resolved

 – The objectionable sentence has been removed. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ctrl+F the Peter Dinklage article for "Prince Caspian".

Our article on the film itself says marketing for the film cost $175 million, which would mean its net profit was less than 20 million, or only around 5% of cost. Given that Disney's investors probably had a certain expectation going in, I would think a $420 million return on a $400 million dollar investment would be anything but a "success".

I can remove the word "success" from the article in question just fine, but I'm wondering if this kind of questionable math regarding film (etc.) profits has come up before with some consensus not to do it in general?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's classic WP:OR and should be removed, unless the citation itself contains the phrase "commercial success". Not to mention the fact that the success or lack thereof of a film an actor is in is irrelevant when the sole comment is on their performance. (All of that said, if a film's first-run U.S. gross box-office returns exceed its budget, it is conceivably a success because those returns do not include international box office, home video, TV broadcasts, streaming, second-run screenings, etc.) Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple math calculations are not considered OR but saying something made a net profit is not a simple calculation. See here [7] [8] [9] for info on why. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A film's budget doesn't account for all expenses (marketing, for one) and BOM "worldwide" gross often doesn't include the entire profit from ticket sales, let alone all income (DVD sales, streaming, merchandise etc.). And in the end, there is the question of who needs to make money to call the film profitable, which is also more complicated than it looks. Hollywood accounting didn't become famous for no reason... Daß Wölf 03:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88, Softlavender, Nil Einne, and Daß Wölf: Has the issue been resolved successfully? Yashovardhan (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, which was WP:OR and not in the citation. Hopefully no one tries to add it back in. Softlavender (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked it as resolved for now. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Chera dynasty synthesis

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

---

An argument is being made over at Talk:Chera dynasty to support the statement, "Early Cheras ruled over territories with Malayalam speakers".

Once again I have to break this down for you. That the Cheras ruled over large parts of Kerala and some regions of Tamil Nadu is clear and undisputed. If you are disputing this, then I would like to point out that you would be completely in error. Not only that it once again exhibits the clear extent of your biases and POVs. The next question is to provide the languages that are in use in these regions. And this detail is provided in the sources outlined who are providing expertise in historical linguistics. This is directly addressed in Govindankutty (1972). Here, Govindankutty clearly states that the linguistic branch is that of the geographic area of the Western coast of South India. In fact, he explicitly calls it 'West coast' dialects and that is the title of the paper! And secondary verification of this paper is provided by Asher & Kumari (1997) and Shanmugam (1976).

Isn't this synthesis/OR? None of the sources cited actually mentions the Cheras (Early or Later) or specifies any dates besides "prehistoric". IOW, other sources have established that the Early Cheras ruled over modern-day Kerala at some point in time. Here's a source that states that Malayalam (now spoken in Kerala) evolved in a prehistoric period. Therefore, it follows that the Early Cheras ruled over regions with Malayalam speakers.

There's also an ongoing DRN on the origin of Malayalam as there are two distinct theories on the language's antiquity, the more widely held of which supports a divergence from Tamil well after the era of the Early Cheras. The Asher & Kumari excerpt is available here (with all the emphasis being mine).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

OR-push at the talkpage of the Balloon boy hoax article

This is just a heads up that multiple new accounts have arrived at the talkpage of Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) trying to push a junk source from youtube, which aims to disprove the hoax by using heavy doses of original research. Just have a look at the latest wall of text by a new account. The article had to be protected due to relentless edit-warring by IPs. The new accounts have been posting walls of text at the talkpage for days where I have tried to explain to them why that source is junk, only to be met by stiff resistance and PAs. Somehow, noone from the article regulars has shown up to support my arguments and pick up the slack. I am not going to waste my time further on this hopeless task. The protection of the article expires on 15 July. So I would appreciate if at that time some editors check what is going on at that article. I have thought of bringing this report to RSN, BLPN, and even ANI, but, for now, I decided to bring it here. Any assistance/advice would also be welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's less OR and more "I want to reference an internet conspiracy theorist", only when told that wasn't a good reference did they fall back to arguing the conspiracy theory on its merits. ApLundell (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There has only been one user which has discussed the "theory" and tried to convince others of it. I also responded to this user explaining Wikipedia is not in the business of giving weight to one side or the other of a legal case, and therefore is not i the business of declaring the event "not a hoax". What is being proposed, at least by me, is not that the allegations the subject makes be included and supported in the article; rather that the fact the subject made those allegations in that video be mentioned. Whether or not they are true is moot and trying to convince others about it as user "Anon" did is unnecessary. Bekeke1 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't be done. I have said this multiple times, but here is the latest: Everytime a youtuber or a blogger adds a video or a post to their channel or blog, we don't have to go after them and add it to Wikipedia. See WP:NOTBLOG. Dr. K. 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K, I appreciate you commitment to the integrity of this beautiful site. I agree with your claim that the video is not usable in the article under WP:RELIABLESOURCES, and that the repeated edit attempts have been unhelpful in resolving the issue. However, I also agree with user Bekeke1 in that the information presented within the video in question is very important, and should not be dismissed as a simple "fringe conspiracy theory", though the medium through which it is presented certainly makes it seem as such. The information and evidence Richard Heene presented is still new, despite the event having taken place years ago. If Heene was able to get his case presented through a different medium, such as an online article from a reputable source or a newspaper, would the information then be reliably presented enough to be considered for addition in the article? Thanks! --DiphthongHere (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Clearly this conspiracy theory won't fly, aha. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Images from Celestia as sources

An editor, User:NelsonWins, recently added a "View from this system" section on many articles about stars. As you can see in an example here, such edits are unsourced. When asked about it, NelsonWins replied that his/her only source is Celestia, an open-source software, and that he/she soon will provide pictures in order to providing sources. I believe that using Celestia, NelsonWins simply centered on a star and visually deduced the sky view from here; I think it falls under original research, yet I am not completely certain of it. Could someone confirm/reject my thought? Khruner (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a bit questionable both in method and whether this is a quality addition to the articles. On one hand I don't believe that reporting something a reliable primary source clearly depicts is original research. However, if NelsonWins is comparing two different pieces of output and making characterizations about the differences and similarities that would probably be WP:SYNTH since neither of the primary sources nor any secondary source are providing those characterizations. I think the questions are whether Celestia is a reliable primary source and how obviously the output supports what NelsonWins is describing. I'm just a newbie though. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Median wage

This article is the matter of a dispute Is calculating median wages from the OECD data considered original research, or not? And is using tax calculators for deriving net wages considered as OR rule violation? It was calculated, because more complex calculation were done and nobody called it original reseacrhes. Like here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1_to_106_J reference 72: "Kinetic energy at start of jump = potential energy at high point of jump. Using a mass of 70 kg and a high point of 40 cm => energy = m*g*h = 70 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 40e-2 m = 274 J" Jeune091 (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear the user calculated after tax income by using tax calculators found online and posting the results. As for the derivation of median wages, the ratio found was multiplied against average wages---the ratio itself is derived from a different set of data vs what underlies the average wage figure (which stems from the national accounts). Therefore it's purely a guesstimate, which is not analagous to the mathematical example posted above (which is certainly not a guess). Therefore the user is inferring a conclusion that is nowhere in the source. Lneal001 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to clarify myself as well.

I used statistics from OECD, particulary these two tables.

For example, if we want to calculate gross median wage, we use certain numbers:

1)80,070 is average annual salary for Australia in AUD. We take it from this source. By going there, you can see that average gross annual wage for Australia is 80,070 AUD

2)0.53 means that minimum wage equals 53% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here If you will look at the left, you will see that both tables for average wages and for ratios are in the same section, therefore the source still the same.

3)0.44 means that minimum wage equals 44% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here again, so we're still using the same source as before. As in, we use the source which provides ratio twice. The same source. Twice.

4)Now mathematics begins. To calculate median/average wage ratio, we divide 0.44 by 0.53. The number we'll get is a ratio of median wage in relation to average, which we recieved by using information from the same source. We used it twice. This source. Twice.

5)The number we've got, particulary 0.83 means, that median wage equals 83% of median wage.

6)Then, to get gross median salary, we mulpily 80,070 by 0.83. 80,070*0.83=66,458. To recieve this number, we used two sources from the same section. This one and that one. The latter we used twice, when we used ratio of minimum to average and minum to median.

7)66,458 AUD is median gross wage. And to quote the source: "

For cross-country comparisons, data on minimum wage levels are further supplemented with another measure of minimum wages relative to average wages, that is, the ratio of minimum wages to median earnings of full-time employees. Median rather than mean earnings provide a better basis for international comparisons as it accounts for differences in earnings dispersion across countries. However, while median of basic earnings of full-time workers - i.e. excluding overtime and bonus payments - are, ideally, the preferred measure of average wages for international comparisons of minimum-to-median earnings, they are not available for a large number of countries.

Minimum relative to mean earnings of full-time workers are also provided.

Here's the link to that note and an image just in case.

So, I really fail to see pure guess in here. And I'm waiting for the verdict. Jeune091 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are using different methods for different states (for istance tax calcuctors of different sources and others).I just checked for Italy by "Calcolo stipendio netto" site(Italian tax calculator,not the one you posted).First of all the net changes by region and second the net is around 1500€(not 1374€ as you wrote).You did the same mistakes for other countries.Your article is very original since the beginning (like similar ones of the same sector).Wikipedia left too much space to original reserach in wages related articles till now.Benniejets (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

God and Sex

This is about [10]. I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. As far I understand it, no third-party quotations are required for the abstract, see e.g. Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman). I treated the book as a primary source. It is not a review or a critical commentary and passes no value judgments upon the book. The book itself is being quoted, and the views expressed therein are literal readings of the book (no other form of interpretation involved). I only mentioned stuff which is (a) interesting (as in producing surprise to those who have not studied the Bible) and (b) can be easily rendered in a few words. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember my thought process because that was awhile ago. But I think my first concern about a potential copyright violation was that it's an excessively long quote. Even with proper attribution, you can only use small portions. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it's pretty close to this example that was subject to a lawsuit. #2. Even if it's not a copyright violation, lengthy excerpts from a book don't belong in its encyclopedia entry (see WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT). —PermStrump(talk) 05:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: just in case. —PermStrump(talk)

@Permstrump: I have read the reply. I am still waiting for other opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Badger culling in the United Kingdom

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

---

Hi, Wikipedians. I'd like to update our article on Badger culling in the United Kingdom, and I'm pleased to see that we have some actual numbers. I'd like to say that more than 10,000 badgers were culled in 2016, based on this source; and to say that in 2015 we slaughtered more than 28,000 cattle to control bovine tuberculosis, based on this source. Then I'd like to say that we're killing nearly three times as many cows as badgers. I don't have a source for that last bit but I think it's okay under WP:CALC? (Source for both figures is Defra.)—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would leave it out. WP:CALC is not the problem here. This sort of comparative statement implies an equivalence between the two events (in this example, between culling a badger and culling a cow) that is not necessarily correct and is certain original research to assume. CIreland (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right to say that I should use wording that doesn't imply equivalence. There's no assumption going on here ---- both sources are from the same British government agency and the context of both is culling to control bovine tuberculosis.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't WP:CALC from two different years' numbers to come up with an overall rate. They are not like figures. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether Oxford English Dictionary can be cited after Wikipedia editors consulted it to find the absence of an entry.

Does that constitute original research ?

Specifically, to add wording to article mainspace, The last print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) does not include this word; neither do the latest electronic updates as of June 2017.

Is that Wikipedia editors doing their own original research and reporting on what they've found to be the absence of an entry, as opposed to citing a specific entry itself ?

Sagecandor (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is original research. What is wrong with this approach is that it implies a word has declined in usage when there could be other reasons for the exclusion. Also, the OED is not the only dictionary and it could be that others have included the word. And per weight, the facts we present should be in accordance with their presence in reliable sources. If no reliable sources have noted the omission then we should not either. TFD (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether The Economist can be cited, and a blog by the same author, to show what a Wikipedia editor feels is "first documented usage of a word" DIFF.

Secondary sources disprove this and state it was not the first documented usage of the word.

(1). The Economist source itself, by author Edward Lucas, himself says in that very article that it is NOT the first usage of the word:

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

(2). We also know this assertion to be outright false from a prior source from 1994:

• Austin, Joe (1994). "The obdurate and the obstinate". In Parker, Tony (ed.). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us? ... That had nothing to do with it, and if you got into it you were defending the indefensible.

Despite this, can a Wikipedia user cite a 2007 and 2008 source as first usage of a word, when that is a primary source and not a secondary source?

As the 2007 and 2008 source themselves explicitly state they themselves are NOT the first usage of the word ?

Is this original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many words, probably most, have nobody keeping track of their origin, nobody to speak for when they were first used occurred. And so it seems utterly well-reason for a person to be able to look at the plethora of records modernly available via the Internet, and state from that that one embodies the earliest occurrence of a word. And for any other person to present a finding earlier still. To me, it would seem, then, that the solution would be to describe all of the several earliest uses. Give their context, and so let them speak for themselves. Pandeist (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, the Economist is being used as a primary source and the linked diff introduces a synthetic statement about this source and other primary sources, which violates WP:PRIMARY and hence constitutes OR. Eperoton (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with analysis by Eperoton, you understand this correctly. Does that mean it also violates WP:SYNTHESIS ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research. I came across this issue a few years ago when an editor found a use of the term "socialist" in a book from the 1700s, while secondary sources said the word was coined in the 1800s. Turns out they were using a Google books copy of a 19th century reprint which retained the original publication date. The original used the obsolete word "scoliast," and a typesetter had inadvertently changed it. Fortunately, some editors were knowledgeable about both religious terminology and publication practices in the 18th and 19th centuries, and had access to the original book. But at the end of the day it was a waste of everyone's time and had it not been for the attention of some highly knowledgeable editors, the article would have included false information. TFD (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)