Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:

  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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

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)
@The Four Deuces:Agree with everything you said, thank you. Please see [1]. Perhaps you can explain it there, better than I can ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:Now in main article text, at [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:Is it original research to include this source in this way [3], to advance a point by the user about what they feel it may or may not mean for a particular source to not mention something? Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
TFD, you sum up the issue VERY well. Editors are not free to state in Wikipedia's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence. Failing in that OR mission, they should not say anything. To add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing.
We do have RS which say that whataboutism was practiced, obviously before the term itself came into use. Our article covers the concept and the word. Whether or not the term was included in some dictionary is another matter. Dictionaries, like Wikipedia, are always behind the curve. We must not conflate the two issues. The only thing we can say about the origins or first usages of the word itself is what RS actually say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it is absolutely OR. The citation is asking the reader to perform the same OR act. This is now what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see how citing a dictionary is OR, and I don't think a dictionary is a primary source. The Oxford English Dictionary proclaims itself the definitive record of the English language. Simply stating that "whataboutism" is not in the OED is simply stating a fact that can easily be checked. It is not just any dictionary; it is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (outside of the USA, at least). The 1989 print edition runs to 20 volumes and aimed to record every word in English usage. If it is OK to cite the inclusion of a word in a dictionary, it should be OK to cite the non-inclusion. Otherwise the process is biased towards editors who say that "whataboutism" was prevalent during the Cold War. They can gather together every stray mention, most of which lead back to Edward Lucas in the Economist in 2007-2008, and cite that as proof. Reference to the OED, however, indicates that "whataboutism" was not a prominently used term. To omit this is to give misleading information to our readers, and runs the risk of citogenesis. More and more writers will read this Wikipedia article and accept that the term was common currency in the Cold War. They will then mention this fact in articles, and these articles will be cited in this Wikipedia article as further proof. I don't think the article should say that Lucas was wrong, or anything like that. I just think we should be able to cite the OED to establish the level of usage of this term historically.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
What is OR is stating that there is no entry. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you can't prove a negative, I think it should be considered OR to state the absence of something. If an RS notes the absence, that's fine, but we can't make that jump. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You can prove it. Anyone can check by accessing the dictionary themselves. I don't see why it's not OR to cite an entry, but OR to cite the absence of an entry. The actions involved are the same: checking a page or querying a database...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's more synthesis than OR. The argument seems to be "Oxford doesn't have an entry for the word (fact), so the word is of questionable validity (synthesis)", even if the last part is unstated. Why bring it up? The only reason seems to question the validity of the term as a WP editor, which is synthesis without a secondary source making that judgement. Same would be true to try to justify that a term is used just because there is an entry in OED; that's synthesis without the secondary source. And as others have said, OED is not the only dictionary we have access to as an RS, just perhaps the oldest and most reliable. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Elaborating on what I said about this in another thread here: in this case OED is being used as a primary source. We can make descriptive statements about it as long as they don't involve interpretation or synthesis, which depends on specific context. In this particular case, the statement did not convey any synthetic or interpretive claim (though I see that it did to other editors), and I only questioned its pertinence. However, similar uses of OED could be valid in a different context, and we don't want to renounce our ability to cite primary sources when secondary sources make false statements about primary sources, and there are no secondary sources which directly contradict them. For example, if a secondary source falsely states that some edition of OED contains a certain entry, we can cite the primary source to indicate otherwise. More realistically, if some secondary source states that a certain word was used in a certain sense during some period and OED does not include this sense in the relevant section, we can make that descriptive statement about OED. Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In response to Masem, the point in citing the OED from 1989 is not to "question the validity of the term", but rather to show that it was not in widespread currency during the Cold War. Citing the current OED to say it still isn't included would give the reader some indication of its currency today and its acceptability in English usage. I think that's pretty important when discussing terminology. I agree it would be synthesis to put the OED together with other sources and come to some conclusion, but I don't think that citing an absence purely and simply is either original research or synthesis. If it was cited in the OED, no doubt the other side of the debate would cite that entry with much fanfare. It is biased to say that absence can't be cited.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory allegations in a biographical article[edit]

Moved to WP:BLP/N because 4 living or possibly living persons are mentioned. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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.

Hello, could someone please look at Talk:Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)? A user has made slanderous remarks about this individual, with no reliable sources to back them up. They allege that they are related to the subject, and that the injurious statements are well-known "facts" in social circles in Oslo. Would be grateful if someone could look into this. -- (talk) 17:24, 31 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.

What is Texas's age of consent?[edit]

This is actually a question that's been discussed for some time at: Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas (under "Indiana section now outdated"). It's a tough subject because Texas has two laws that may affect the age of consent:

  • section 21.11 of title 5: "Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:[...]"
  • section 43.25(b): "Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section: (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age." inducement of sexual conduct and for sexual activity involving "visual representation or employment" at 18

There had been two convictions under 43.25 John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker which did not involve commercial performances nor visual representation, with only incitement to do a sexual act.

Situation from published reliable sources:

  • Texas newspapers say that the age of consent is 17 (I haven't seen an article from a Texas newspaper citing Dornbusch or stating that it's in fact 18)
    • Houston Chronicle: "The case illustrates the gray area of criminal responsibility for teens having sex before they are legally able to consent at the age of 17."
    • Dallas Morning News: "The age of consent in Texas is 17."
  • Stephen L. Carter (Yale University professor) argued on the basis of John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker that in fact the AOC is 18 even though some defense lawyers didn't believe so (one example of a defense lawyer that he cited)
  • Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post considered Stephen Carter's arguments: "As best I can tell, 30 states set the general age of consent at sixteen; 8 set it at seventeen; and 12 set it at eighteen (though it’s possible that the last there are actually 7 at seventeen and 13 at eighteen, because of an odd twist with Texas law). [...] Over 60 percent of the population lives in the states that set the age of consent at 16 or 17, regardless of how one counts Texas." - He didn't definitely decide whether Texas AOC should be set at 17 or 18

Currently on the U.S. age of consent map Texas is colored gray for other/unknown instead of a specified age

User:Fabrickator argued that because the Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d (this requires a payment to view) recently published a statement in the section "20 Tex. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Offenses Against Public Order" saying: "The language of this provision [Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25(b)] criminalizes the inducement of a child's sexual conduct regardless of whether it amounts to a sexual performance, and it applies to nonpornographic, noncommercial sexual conduct by children." (and because of other explanations in Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas in regards to how incitement of sexual conduct was criminalized), Wikipedia ought to say that 18 is definitely the age of consent in Texas, arguing that any statements saying that the age of consent are 17 are not true.

I argue that because at this time secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) haven't come to a consensus that 18 should be considered the age of consent, and the Texas state government and major newspapers have never made an announcement (in a medium read by the "ordinary Joe") explicitly clarifying that 18 and not 17 is the age of consent on the basis of Dornbusch and Baker, the article should not definitely state which age is Texas's age of consent and instead summarize the various views by columnists and present the exact quote from the source Fabrickator found.

Lastly I will say that in regards to my proposal to ask the Texas state government and/or major newspapers to make a public announcement to clarify what the "age of consent" is in the state (my suggestion to Fabrickator to get this matter cleared up), this is a perfectly reasonable request on the grounds of:

  • Prosecutors do prosecute on the grounds of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse", so clarity on the law is warranted
  • It is the job of government officials to explain the laws they write, interpret, and enforce
  • The vast majority of ordinary people don't even think of reading Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d, let alone paying for it, nor will they think of searching for legal cases that get scant coverage in the media (I don't think any Texas outlets have ever published any articles saying that Dornbusch and Baker have changed/affected the state age of consent - such articles would be warranted!) - therefore government officials should publish "plain speech" and/or "TL/DR" summaries of the realities/interpretations of such laws.

@Fabrickator: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify: What part in all of this relates to the issue of Original Research? Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I fear that if one, based on the above presented, says the age of consent is certainly 18, it may be counted as original research due to ambiguities over the wording "inducement of a child's sexual conduct" (what forms of inducement? what does that mean?) in the 18+ law, as well as due to the lack of agreement between the secondary sources (note that while "Texas newspapers say that" lists two examples, there are many other newspaper articles which say the age of consent is 17). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
OK... here is my take: we have one statute that says 17, and another that says 18... thus Wikipedia can not say that one or the other is the definitive age of consent. Instead we need to note both ages, and the statutes that apply. Don't interpret the statutes ... just neutrally present what they say. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. Above I suggested not definitely stating an age of consent. I don't see a problem including interpretations from other secondary sources as long as they're presented as such, such as Stephen Carter's, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F a user e-mailed me the Texas Jurisprudence article. He read the Baker v. Texas link which stated "the plain language of section 43.25(b) authorizes the prosecution of those who induce persons younger than eighteen years old to, among other things, have sexual intercourse." and based on that believes the age of consent is unambiguously 18; the Wikipedian believes that (his words): "It scarcely matters that there is also a different criminal provision with a minimum age of 17." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm the editor just quoted. I didn't realize that this was about an OR issue.
The OR issues here are a bit tricky. None of the secondary sources cited above are reliable sources: lay newspapers are not RS for legal conclusions, and neither are unedited blog posts. So can we simply say that the Texas age of consent is 18, or is that WP:SYN? I think this is a fairly close issue on the WP:SYN issue, but what carries the day for me is that a Texas court, in the course of discussing these two statutes, actually said that the Texas age of consent is 17. Ex parte Fujisaka, 472 S.W.3d 792, 800, 801 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).
On the other hand, we can't just say that the age of consent is 17, either. The Texas Department of Public Safety has taken the position that the Texas age of consent is 18. Appellant's Brief, Texas Department of Public Safety v. Garcia, 2010 WL 1366961, at 8 (Tex. Ct. App. filed Feb. 1, 2010). And this is clearly a reasonable position for the department to take. So for us to choose one age over the other would be WP:SYN. We need to say that there are two different statutes that have been characterized as age of consent statutes in Texas, with two different ages (17 and 18), with perhaps a brief discussion of each.
If anyone wants a copy of any of the documents I've cited, email me and I can reply with a PDF. The Fujisaka case may be available on the web, I haven't checked. John M Baker (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your research! It's really helpful and answers a lot of questions.
As for lay newspapers being unreliable sources for law, it may help to put that in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) if there's a consensus for that position among Wikipedia:WikiProject Law editors. However "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)" is currently just an essay.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
To switch gears a bit, would anybody care to speculate why Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header (click on the "show" link) defines special rules pertaining to the quality of the "age of consent" pages? Fabrickator (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fabrickator: Thanks for bringing that up! Do you remember where the discussions which determined this discussion header are located? I am aware that there is a general principle on WP that a small group of editors in a particular place can come up with a consensus, but that a larger consensus determined by the whole community can override that. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: I think we can reasonably assume that the guidance provided in the "discussion header" came about from challenges encountered as the "age of consent" pages evolved, and (I presume) particularly as different "reliable sources" provided conflicting information. My recollection, when I previously raised the issue of the special rules that apply to the "age of consent" pages, was that somebody had determined that the discussion was "misplaced" and was moved to a different article. I have been unable to locate that discussion.
I am unaware of other pages that have a similar set of special rules. The editors involved felt strongly that these rules were needed, which suggests to me that we should not dismiss them lightly. I'd also point out that in addition to the issue about appropriate references, the "discussion header" calls for highlighting a specifically-defined age of consent. I would advocate that we think carefully before ignoring this advice. Fabrickator (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: @John M Baker: @WhisperToMe: I am not sure this is the proper forum for this discussion, but as long as we're here ...
It has been stated that there is one statute saying the age of consent is 17 and another saying it's 18, but this is not really accurate. Neither of these laws authorizes consensual sex with a person over a stated age. Rather, each of these criminalizes consensual sex (under specified conditions) with a person under a stated age.
Arguably, there may be some ambiguity about what these "conditions" are, but more plausibly, the D.A.'s office determines there is a crime to be prosecuted, and then based on what they feel they can prove, they decide what statutes to charge.
Last but not least, if there's some kind of vague condition, the intention of having a "highlighted" age of consent is to indicate the age of consent that doesn't require further explanation (i.e. an approximation to an "unfettered" age of consent). So what I mean by this is, if I tell you that the age of consent is thus and such, then a person should not be subject to prosecution, if the other party is of the specified age. Maybe there are conditions when sex with someone under that age may not be subject to prosecution, but that's going to require further clarification. Our focus needs to be on the age that doesn't need this further clarification. Fabrickator (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Fabrickator, that's not really what an age of consent statute does; it's pretty rare for a statute affirmatively to state that a person over a specified age is authorized to consent to sex. Instead, rape and other statutes provide that a person under a certain age is deemed unable to consent to sex. The intro to Age of consent explains this pretty well. John M Baker (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@John M Baker: But of course. The point, however, is that these two laws do not contradict each other, they apply concurrently, and this distinction is important, because to say there are two different age of consent statutes would mislead the casual reader.
Our only concern is determining how old the other person has to be, so that an actor having consensual sex with that person is not thereby committing a criminal act, without making any assumptions about the actor's age. There cannot be two answers, because there's only one set of factual circumstances (granting, notwithstanding, the additional condition of 43.25(b), and that there could, in principle, be different ages of consent for different sexual acts).
Setting aside specific limitations or exceptions to the statute is how we arrive at this notion of the "unfettered" age of consent. This saves us from confusing the issue, for instance, by saying that as long as you don't induce the person, sex with a 17-year-old is legal, leaving the reader to erroneously infer that inducement means providing compensation. There's one set of factual circumstances, there can only be one "bold" age of consent for Texas, and there's no reason to make it appear that there's some ambiguity about this. Fabrickator (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I actually do think that that's the right answer. I've spelled out the factual situation above, so I'll let others decide whether that's an OR problem. John M Baker (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@John M Baker: To be clear, I am continuing to advocate that the "unfettered" age of consent for Texas is 18. I am not sure what your statement about "factual situation" means. To clarify, I'll offer the following as an example set of "factual circumstances":
A 72-year-old retired person comes into contact with a high school senior. They talk briefly and decide to grab some food. While eating, they have a discussion about some things of common interest, e.g. sex. The adult suggests to the student that he has a "library" that may be of interest to the student. So they go back to his place, one thing leads to another, and they have consensual oral, vaginal, and anal sex. The adult has not previously been convicted of any crime, there was no promise of payment for sex, no pictures were taken, no other parties were present, nor was there anything that constituted a "performance".
Based on these factual circumstances, how old would the student have to be such that the 72-year-old did not commit a crime under the applicable statutes? Considering "factual circumstances" such as this one should inform us as to the appropriate "unfettered" age of consent for Texas. Fabrickator (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The student would have to be 18 for there to be no crime. This is not a point on which there is ambiguity. The ambiguity, if there is any, derives from the meaning of "age of consent." Under the definition in our age of consent article, the age of consent in Texas is 18. However, "age of consent" is often taken as the age at which consent can be given to intercourse under a rape statute, and for this purpose the age of consent in Texas is 17. John M Baker (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And I believe that's why the ages of consent of Ohio and Pennsylvania are defined as "16" even though someone may still be prosecuted for corruption of a minor until the younger party is 18 (the respective "corruption of minor statutes" are classified differently. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: @John M Baker: @WhisperToMe: Would there be consensus to "close" the discussion on this page, and copy the discussion from here over to Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas where we can resume the discussion (perhaps including a summary of the "findings" of this discussion)? (oops, we either need a new section on Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States or rename one of the existing sections named "Texas") Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I concur. John M Baker (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I've said everything I wanted to say... so do what you want. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fabrickator: The discussion may be moved :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller/Jim Acosta debate[edit]

We have a few editors trying to add content to Stephen Miller (political advisor) without going through the hassle of getting consensus on the talk page. The content in question is: "Miller attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism, accusing them of a "cosmopolitan bias". Supposedly this content is supported by an op-ed in Politico[4] and a New York Times[5] piece, but there is nothing that says anything about "attacked" or "deficit of nationalism." This is possibly BLP-violating material also that is being repeatedly inserted, so I have no qualms if an admin would care to slide this over to that noticeboard instead. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The above analysis by Mr.Mx. Tempo claims that Mr. Stephen Miller neither "attacked" his critics nor accused said critics of a "deficit of nationalism", both claims are startlingly incorrect. Addressing the former claim, the New York Times states that Mr. Miller, quote "ripped into a reporter" [6], while the Politico [7] source goes at length to detail the history of the "cosmopolitan" insult, and notes that it is "a clear implication that there is something less patriotic, less loyal", i.e saying such things to a person is clearly an attack. Addressing the latter claim, the phrase "deficit of nationalism" directed at a person simply means that the speaker believes the target to be lacking in nationalism or pride in one's country, that one is (in this case, less American. Again, the Politico source speaks precisely to the context of Mr. Miller's "cosmopolitan bias", and how it has been used by Stalin to justify the Soviet Purge, and cites noted white nationalist Richard Spencer's cheering of Mr. Miller's attack of Mr. Acosta.
In conclusion, I feel the complaints levied by Mr.Mx. Tempo to be without merit. TheValeyard (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your interpretations of the op-ed. It served as a nice summary/breakdown of what "original research" is. Please stop calling me "Mr. Tempo", though. It sounds absurd. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Miller accused a specific reporter of having a "cosmopolitan bias". He may have had in mind the whole of "fake media" but we don't know that. Wikipedia article should stick to facts not interpretations, that close to events. Interpretations can come later, when someone writes a book or a scholarly article on Miller's career, including this particular incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The term "cosmopolitan" is a code word used by the far right for Jews. It was a statement that Jews were not citizens of the countries where they lived. However, we do not know whether Miller was aware of that and we have no reliable sources on it. The way the text is phrased implies that he is anti-Semitic without any reliable sources that report that opinion. If actual news stories cover the matter, then we could report on it, because then we would know the weight of the accusation and his response. TFD (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the sources address whether he knew or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
TFD, I agree with your reasoning, and appreciate your neutrality in interpreting the sources. However, I have no idea what source you are using for the supposed "code word" meaning of "cosmopolitan." I see no dictionary that echoes this sentiment, and can only find a few op-eds penned by fierce critics of Donald Trump, Republicans, and opinions with which they do not agree in general. As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan," not the definition of some Politico blogger who used it to smear a Trump advisor. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The Politico citation goes into a great deal of history behind the term. You can't make excuses for someone who plainly and demonstrably uses a historically bigoted code-word. That would be original research. TheValeyard (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You still aren't fully grasping the meaning of original research. It doesn't matter if Jeff over at Politico agrees with you about the meaning of "cosmopolitan." You can't use an op-ed to make a statement of fact. Period. I have explained this to you numerous times, but you instead choose to eschew the advice of far more experienced editors and soldier onward with your BLP violating material without gaining consensus. And that is why you have now found yourself the subject of an AN/I report. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I fully welcome an ANI report; at the very least I will able to be judged fairly and honestly by editors who have no prior involvement in this, rather than by your repeated condescending attempts. I am grasping the concept of original research just fine; in fact let me point out an example of it, Mr.Mx. Tempo. Look above where you said "As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan...". Those 4 words at the beginning demonstrate that you are basing your editing choices on your personal opinion rather than on reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
HT, you're the one who started it with the "adding content without hassle of getting consensus on the talk page". I then added additional content on the same topic and backed it with reliable sources. At that point you realized that the way reliable sources covered the material wasn't in line with your pov so you switched to trying to remove it. Then Lambden jumped in because... well, because he stalks my edits. Other users tweaked the wording to have a "compromise" version and it looked for a second like the matter was settled. But that wasn't good enough for you so you restarted the edit warring basically saying "it's my way or the highway". Of course Lambden supported you in this, but everyone else (multiple editors) opposed. Along the way, both you and Lambden have failed to discuss the matter productively and have instead resorted to personal attacks (including making false derogatory accusations about other editors - to be fair, that was mostly Lambden, although HiddenTempo also played his part). Other editors came to the discussion and the page and objected to you two guys' WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. At that point you realized consensus was against you. So you did what any seasoned WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior would do, you came running here and Lambden went to the drama boards (ANI). The whole episode is one sorry example of WHAT NOT TO DO ON WIKIPEDIA. You two have done the POV, you have done the EDIT WAR, you did the PERSONAL ATTACK, you did the BATTLEGROUND and now you're doing the WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer, please do not shout and personally attack folks on this noticeboard. This is a place to resolve content disputes, not attack other editors or raise user conduct issues. In short, the addition of contentious, BLP-violating material that was not represented in the sources was repeatedly added without consensus, which I (and others) removed. Reinstating contentious material without consensus is not permitted on the project. Please direct the subject of your future edits here on the content, not on individual editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I am neither shouting nor am I "personally attacking" anyone. I use caps sparingly, for emphasis, which is how us adults used to do it back in the day. And I am not attacking anyone, I am ... CRITICIZING. Because there's plenty worthy of criticism. And I see you've switched to that faux-civil passive-aggressive approach, rather than the outright incivility you've displayed on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As to that "cosmopolitan" thing. Here:

And this makes sense too. "Cosmopolitan" is a very strange word to use in this context. There's plenty of other words, without the ugly history, that Miller could've used in the exchange. But. He chose this particular one. Of course it's gonna raise eyebrows.

BTW, I think we're missing the information that Miller "found himself apologizing to Acosta" in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Three op-eds from random blogs and an op-ed from CNN does nothing for your argument that you (or any other editor) has the right to implement contentious BLPVIO material post-reversion and skip the "D" in WP:BRD. You need to gain consensus for the contested material, which you either forgot to do, or remembered and just didn't feel like doing. The material misrepresents the sources. Straight up. In regards to the apology, Miller apologized to Acosta "if things got heated," not for accusing him of harboring a "cosmopolitan bias." Nobody "missed" anything - that was just your own person interpretation/analysis of what really happened. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, those aren't "random blogs". Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Public Radio International - not a "random blog".
CNN - not a "random blog"
Thinkprogress - leftward leaning (obviously), but not a "random blog".
Ha'aretz - Not a "random blog".
When someone is deliberately insulting sources and doing so in a 100% false way, it's a sign that their argument has zero merit. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I note that your userpage is using the "Retired" template, Morty. And yet, you still continue editing the encyclopedia. Anyway, whatever op-eds those blogs are printing not enough to make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is the definition of original research, and that is what the editors who are skipping the consensus-building process are attempting to make the case against on this noticeboard. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we can safely discount the opinion of anyone so rankly dishonest that they continue to dismiss legitimate journalism with a false and insulting claim that the articles are "blogs". Morty C-137 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Has everybody forgotten the key argument that Acosta was trying to extract from Miller? That somehow asking for immigration candidates to speak English was a sneaky way to limit them to people from Great Britain and Australia? Given that a good billion people use English as a native language, and another billion as a second language, Miller's outrage was quite on point. Perhaps Miller should have said "Have you heard of India, Mr. Acosta? What about Nigerians? Ghanaians? Singaporeans?" On the face of it, Acosta's remark was way more bigoted and condescending than any "code word" that Miller used in his rebuttal. (Maybe I read too many women's magazines, but I never heard "cosmopolitan" in a racial context.) — JFG talk 22:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Miller should have said "Have you heard of India, Mr. Acosta? What about Nigerians? Ghanaians? Singaporeans?" - but he didn't, which is sort of the point! Instead he chose to use a code word used among white supremacists. You're basically saying "well, if he had something else, we wouldn't be having this discussion", you know that, right? I mean, yeah, no shit, but, so? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, no shit, but, so? Dude! YOLO! 718smiley.svg Seriously, it's fascinating to watch how both sides think the other guy is extremely prejudiced… Sad! — JFG talk 06:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
That's nice, but your misinterpretations of questions, your original-research (if the term "research" is even appropriate) opinions, and your lack of education/knowledge regarding white supremacist epithets really don't have any bearing on the discussion. Miller used a word with a history of being an anti-jewish epithet, and he did so in the context of being an individual with known white supremacist ties. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Morty, you can believe whatever you want to believe about the word "cosmopolitan," but the dictionary is really quite clear on this. The hate-Trump blogosphere does not get to redefine certain words and attempt to predict what people are thinking. Your poorly sourced (a fashion mag??) smear of Miller as having "white supremacist ties" is a BLP violation. Please strike immediately. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The source is considered WP:RS enough to be a recommended link at Stephen Miller (political advisor). He does have white supremacist ties, as reported by reliable journalistic reporting; as such, the comment shall not be struck as it is highly relevant. Similarly, reliable journalistic reporting and historical researchers have shown that the word has history of being used as a racist code word. Hyper-strict reliance on "the dictionary" has, however, proven to be a time-honored tactic of those blowing a dog whistle. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even going to address your absurd race-baiting argument from "Affinity Magazine". It's offensive that you would even try to justify your smears and BLP violations with trash like that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, "race baiting", another common signaling device from those who are blowing a dog whistle. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Your condescension is noted. My dog wishes you a nice day! — JFG talk 06:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering: "Lady Liberty has also become a fixation for the more extreme elements of the right, individuals less interested in correct symbolism than using the poem — and its Jewish author — as convenient targets for ugly anger and anti-Semitism. The same month Limbaugh spoke about Lazarus, alt-right figurehead Richard Spencer also took aim at the statue’s poem...David Duke, former Klu Klux Klan leader and current Trump supporter, spent an entire chapter in one of his books weaving anti-Semitic conspiracy involving the monument and Lazarus....Lazarus is also a frequent topic on Stormfront, one of the Web’s largest white supremacist hubs. One typical post on Lazarus is “Give Me Your Huddled Masses — The Jewess who tried to destroy the US!” And today, Stormfront’s forums were buzzing about Miller (who was raised in a Jewish home in Southern California). “Miller really did destroy them. It’s pretty much a badge of honour for a jew to jew another jew,” one Stormfront commenter wrote. “And those damn (((journalists))) are insufferable. I say free helicopter rides for them.” “That cnn jew reporter asked ‘Are we only going to allow immigrants from Great Britian Australia in?'”another said. “It would have been great if Stephen Miller responded with YES! and every other White Country also.”"
Source: Morty C-137 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And of course, The Telegraph has similar coverage to Vanity Fair (which actually has a very good journalistic reputation, nevermind the WP:IDONTLIKEIT smears from the alt-right commenters here): "His views caught the attention of white supremacist Richard Spencer – a Duke graduate and the man who organised the “Heil Trump” gathering in Washington DC. Mr Spencer said he became friendly with Mr Miller through the Duke Conservative Union in the autumn of 2006, and last year told the Daily Beast that he was a “mentor” to Mr Miller " Morty C-137 (talk)

I guess I need to mention that Hidden Tempo just decided to tag my talk page with an unfortunate diatribe, accusing me of "disrupting" this discussion by posting well sourced (Washington Post,The Telegraph) coverage that is relevant to the discussion and threatening to complain about me on a different board. I think I have to side with Volunteer Marek here, their behavior is very much uncivil. Morty C-137 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski manifesto[edit]

Outside opinions needed at Talk:Ted Kaczynski#RfC regarding Original Research I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

CIvil conflict infobox at 2017 Unite the Right Rally[edit]

At 2017 Unite the Right Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Don1183 (talk · contribs) persists in adding a "civil conflict" infobox despite lack of consensus at the talk page pointing out that there are no sources calling this a civil conflict. It's been removed twice and he's restored it each time. He's a new editor but I did explain this to him on his talk page. He thinks that because it seems that a car deliberately rammed people that makes it a civil conflict. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And it names groups on each "side" which of course mahpkes it look as though they are all fighting each other. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Clearly undue. A similar discussion came up at 2017 Berkeley protests; there was even an RfC about it, which closed with a clear consensus against such an infobox: RfC about adding an infobox (permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and have removed the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Prime Number Distribution Series[edit]

I have also requested a look at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. Is this new article original research? It appears to me that the author is referring to his own works, and that they have not been peer-reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2020‎[edit]

The rules in use at United States presidential election, 2020‎, while reasonable for a state-level campaign with a short window of candidate uncertainty, are producing an absurd result right now. The page is almost entirely original research as to who is "likely" to run. I'm not sure how to fix the page, I have proposed several options but the editors-in-residence on that page (many of whom have edited this type of page for many years) are resistant to even entertaining the idea of change. Any suggestions on how to improve that page? Power~enwiki (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

British Sri Lankan Tamil article[edit]

I have removed quite a lot of original research from the British Sri Lankan Tamil article, largely consisting of material sourced to sources that do not mention British Sri Lankan Tamils. An example is "The second generation have received little attention from scholars, but a lot of information can be gleamed from similar diaspora groups in other racial communities. The Economist noted how westernisation had affected Muslims...", which Lankandude2017 is insisting on restoring to the article. I have started a discussion at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil and would appreciate further input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that Iryna Harpy has previously expressed similar concerns about this editor's additions to the British Tamil article, and so I've been looking into some of their contributions. I have deleted some unsourced material from Indian diaspora in France. I'd appreciate help looking into their other contributions to see if this is a general problem with their editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Update: Health in Sri Lanka: I've already found WP:OFFTOPIC additions such as the one here, as well as content from promotional sites that do not meet with WP:RS, as well as completely unsourced content here. Considering how few contributions the user has made, all of them smack of WP:NOTHERE. The user's objective is WP:SPA beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've removed the contentious material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about references and airport articles[edit]

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)