Misplaced Pages

:No original research/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:No original research Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:13, 3 December 2008 editBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,099 edits →Headline map at Spanish Empire← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:56, 30 December 2024 edit undoThomasO1989 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,266 edits →SYNTH-edits at Team Seas: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{editabuselinks}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{Shortcut|WP:NOR/N|WP:NORN|WP:ORN|WP:OR/N}}
|counter = 52
This notice board is provided so that editors can ask for advice about material that might be ] (OR) or ].

The policy that governs the issue of original research is ] (]). It says: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." For questions about the policy itself, please go to ].

Please post new topics in . When a thread is closed, you can tag it with {{tl|resolved}}.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(28d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}]]
}}{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
]

__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__ __TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 28 |collapsible=yes}}


== Original research for claim regarding polling for Donald Trump's legal cases on the 2024 United States election page ==
]
]

== Image question ==
(Note: This is the image in question: ], and ])

At ], there is an image of white girls in team Mexico shirts to illustrate that 10-15% of Mexico and very large portions of the populations of other Latin American countries are white. This has caused one editor to claim that the uploader was lying, and another to claim that it violates OR. ]. I thought that this was covered by ]: "Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." as well as ] that the uploader wasn't lying. Can somebody else comment as we seem to be going in circles. ] (]) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm the editor claiming that it's OR, since NOR applies to image captions also, because the claim that those are Mexicans is not found in reliable sources but only emerges from the uploader him-/herself. (Btw, that part of Mexico's population — 9% (CIA) or 15% (Britannica) — is white in undisputable, IMO. So that's not an issue.) So the question is: can a Wikipedian take a picture of an unknown person and upload it with a description that reads "this is a Fooian", and that's it, that's a Fooian, based on no other source? ] (]) 07:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::I'd concur with SamEV. Are they Mexican? Are they white? I'd rather replace this image with a photo of a properly identified, named person that clearly identifies him/herself as ''white''. One is just as good as three. ] (]) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I hope it's not a breach of Wikiquette for me to say "Thank you". ] (]) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Here's ] of an image that ''was'' considered an image of Greeks once (so says the respectable National Film Board of Canada), then someone said ''Hey, it's Russians coming'' and now nobody can tell the truth except for the very people in the picture. Go figure. Attribution is important. ] (]) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::(ec) I wrote a fairly long reply to this discussion, but then decided to scrap it. This image is simply not a very good test case for ]: it's not that it's an original image taken by a Wikipedian, but that it's a fairly unremarkable — and probably quite easily replaceable — low-res image of ] ], with no information on where and when it was taken (including no ] data) or who the subjects are, uploaded by a ] with no other contribs. I don't really know how Commons tends to regard such images, but if it was on Misplaced Pages and didn't happen to be used in any articles, I don't expect anyone on ] would object to its deletion.

::::(Incidentally, the main thrust of my discarded comment was that the real issue — barring ] concerns — is not whether the image ''actually'' depicts white Mexicans but whether it's a good ''illustration'' for a section ''discussing'' white Mexicans. But nevermind.) —] <small>(])</small> 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yes, the main point SamEV seems to be making is that almost any picture that doesn't contain famous people/things is OR. There are other pictures on the same page or Indigenous South Americans, Cuban salsa dancers, and Central American ] which says are also OR. My reading of the OR image policy is that the images should not ], and so all four of these images are not an OR problem. Can we get some more people to weigh in as Sam is raising a global issue rather than a specific one? ] (]) 18:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I read the discussion at Greek Canadian, NVO. There's a Russian flag over their heads, and no Greek flag, so calling them Russians seems entirely appropriate, I agree. On the other hand, don't disregard entirely the description of them as Greeks, just in case it they really were Russians of Greek ancestry. In any case, this seems like a good little mystery. Maybe you could try contacting Russian Canadian and/or Greek Canadian people or organizations in Vancouver.

::::::Thank you too, Ilmari Karonen. To be sure, my objection is not the fact that a Wikipedian may have taken the picture, but the entire lack of an outside source concerning these subjects' nationality/citizenship. But now that you bring up the right to privacy, I'd also add that as another reason why an already-public figure should be used instead. Besides, the BLP policy states: ''"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."'' Unsourced it is, and this discussion is itself proof that the image has proven contentious.
::::::I wonder what it will take for you, NJGW, to see that: the image has ''zero'' reliable source attribution. That's the crux of it. ] (]) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If you think there are other reasons for the picture to be inappropriate, that's a topic for another place... right now we're discussing whether it violates the current OR image policy. According to your standard, the image at ], all but perhaps the historical photographs at ], all the photographs at ], and all the photos at ] would be OR. I'm not asking you to keep telling me I'm wrong, I'm asking other people to have a look at the question. ] (]) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Allow me to correct you: it's not my standard, it's Misplaced Pages's.
::::::::And if there are more violations, then there are more violations; whether it be additional reasons why the image is wrong, or other instances of NOR violations. ] (]) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I certatinly agree that the image and caption at ] constitute OR. Images should clearly depict what is discussed in the text. This picture does not. There is more than reasonable doubt as to whether the people depicted in the image are indeed Mexicans. It is just as likely that they are Europeans or Americans. Tourists who happen to be wearing team Mexico shirts. ] (]) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::And thank you too, Blueboar. (I thought I'd break with the thanking tradition, but couldn't.) ] (]) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== Fathers' rights ==

An editor, ], has repeatedly inserted a sentence from page 48 of this reliable source into the History and Background section of ] article. The problem in my view is that neither the book, the chapter, nor the involved paragraph is about the fathers' rights movement but about child custody through the ages, and that the inclusion of this sentence is therefore Original Research.("If the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research"). Indeed, the sentence occurs in a section about the 'father absence' motif, which is specifically noted to be a move away "from a concern with father's rights". More details of my analysis can be found here.. Michael H 34 disagrees and argues for its inclusion. Can we have an outside opinion please? --] (]) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:Any chance that somebody could offer an opinion? --] (]) 12:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

: If the source itself does not mention Fathers Rights Movement, and no 3rd Party source links the source to Fathers Rights Movement, then the information can't be ] linked to the Fathers Rights Movement. So adding it into the article is ]. However, rather than deleting it totally, consider adding it into ] or another related article as its a wellformatted cite, and the information is of value. --] (]) 12:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== NBA depth chart articles ==

On various ] depth charts (the chart that somewhat shows who plays how much and when they enter the game), there are two schools of thought on how to keep them up-to-date:
# Keep them consistent with an external source such as which lists the depth charts for each team. For example, here is a depth chart: {{tl|2008–09 Detroit Pistons depth chart}} and here is the corresponding .
# Base them on playing time determined from each NBA games boxscore. This method would use various boxscores: , and .

I think it's appropriate to only use the first method since there is a reliable source which lists the exact information which is used in the template. I this the second method is inappropriate because the editor has to analyze the playing time of each player to determine where they fit in the depth chart. This method is ambiguous since it's not defined how to make this decision. Does it take into account all the playing time to date? Just the playing time in the last game? All the playing time in the last week?

I'm curious what everyone else has to say on the subject. — ] (]) 13:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

: I see method 2 as original research because it is based on the editor's analysis of the players' recent minutes played, and any answers to your questions are original research as well...unless there is a reliable source that specifically defines the "depth" of a team. —<font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:I think option #2 is the better one. Also, the NBA.com box scores now specify which players were on the inactive list that game. ● '''''<font face="broadway" size="3">]]]</font> <sup>@</sup>''''' 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:*I would say wait for a reliable source to list a depth chart] (]) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:We should have a reliable source for this sort of thing, as I don't believe that minutes played is the only factor in setting the depth chart - so option 1 would be my preference. That said, a list of players by team, sorted by the average number of minutes played per game (backed by a source for that stat) wouldn't be original research itself, since all we'd be doing is ordering the list by value, which is objective (48 is greater than 40, for example). ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Most of the pages the depth charts are included on have a sortable statistics table that has average minutes played as one of the columns. That might be a good place to be able to see that information, although it will not be sorted by position as it would be on the depth chart. — ] (]) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

=== Use of NBA depth chart template for past teams ===

I really the idea of creating a wiki template to illustrate a team's depth chart. Has anyone thought of using this template for pages about non-current/past teams? I feel that it would be a good addition to include for past teams to provide a visual of that team's role and reserve players during a particular season. However in such a case, I think the "Inactive" column would be unnecessary. Does anyone know if there is a way to modify the template so that only the starter and reserve columns show? --] (]) 01:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Original Synthesis? ==

In the ] article this sentence is added by an anonymous ip editor:

On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold ] and awarded approximately $13 million. ]

Reference 2 makes no mention of the events that took place in Reference 1. Is this an example of original synthesis? ] (]) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:No, there's no requirement for reference 2 to do a recap of the full history of the golden Buddha. But, it isn't clear whether the $13M in ref 2 was for only the Buddha or if it included the gold bars too. ] (]) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks Squidfryerchef, but reference 2 does not mention the trial of Feb 28, 2000. Reference 2 could be refering to the original trial of 1996? ] (]) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:::It's hard to say; it almost requires a flowchart to go through the figures. Maybe more sources should be brought in to reach agreement. ] (]) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::::I do not believe there is an issue concerning whether the award was for the golden buddha, or the 17 bars, or both. The issue being disputed by JimBob is whether there is any judgment at all for the theft of any portion of the treasure! Reference 1 was dated after the hearing on the value of the gold, but before the trial court's decision. Reference 2 was dated after the trial court's decision, but while the decision was still pending on appeal. JimBob conveniently failed to provide you with reference 3 which clarifies the exact nature of the judgment awarded. ] This article was dated after the judgment became final and states: '''"Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996."''' The article also makes clear that the claims assigned to the GBC were the claims for theft of the treasure. He also left out Reference 4, also dated after the final judgment and also confirming the existence of a judgment for the theft of the treasure. ] That source provides: '''"Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas."''' The Solicitor General obviously combines the $6 million awarded to the estate and $13m awarded to the GBC to reach its $19m figure awarded to the "Roxas claimants" defined as both. There are many other authorities as well. I invite you to review the article and talk page for a full recitation of all the sources JimBob is battling against. Remember, the exact amounts are not the real dispute, JimBob refuses to allow any mention of the fact that Roxas' successors have any judgment whatsoever concerning the theft of the treasure, which cannot be rationally supported by reference to the applicable authorities.

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article." ] (]) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:: And the sky is blue... Your statement makes no sense in relation to the facts of this case. A and B can be put together to reach conclusion C when conclusion C is reported as a fact in reliable sources D, E, F and G (which is the situation we have on the Yamashita's Gold article) ] (]) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, no... that is the entire point of this part of NOR. A and B must ''not'' be put together in that way, unless a ''source'' puts them together. ] (]) 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== Outside views needed. ==

{{unresolved}}
*<b>The relevant content is: Many controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation (SM) are available, but their results disagree, and they are typically of low quality..</b>
:Refs: 1) {{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |doi=10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192 |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}
:2){{cite journal |journal= ] |date=2006 |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=160–9 |title= Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC |pmid=16596892}}
:{{cite journal |journal=] |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue=8 |pages=914–8 |title= The use of expertise-based randomized controlled trials to assess spinal manipulation and acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review |author= Johnston BC, da Costa BR, Devereaux PJ, Akl EA, Busse JW; Expertise-Based RCT Working Group |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b4be4 |pmid=18404113}}
The Fernandez-de-las-Penas article states that there are FEW (not many) RCTs investigating the effectiveness of SMT for TTH/CeH/M (headaches), and that the methodological quality of THESE papers is low. It does not state that the methodological quality of clinic studies of spinal manipulation in general are low, only that the few RCTs on headaches are of low quality. I think that stating that using this reference to state that "controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation ... are typically of low quality" is OR.

Johnson 2008 states "Of 12 eligible trials, none made use of an expertise-based randomized trial design." (a specific type of RCT), but does not make any statements that the 12 trials they reviewed were or low quality, nor did they state that conctrolled clinical studies of SM are typically of low quality.

The editor who wrote this text has also using Bronfort et al (2004) to verify this statement. It states ""In spite of urgent calls for improved methodological quality of RCTs on spinal manipulation, it appears that even the most recently published RCTs have been of discouragingly low quality. Fifty-two (75%) of the 69 RCTs in this review exhibited relatively low quality (validity scores less than 50). Of the 43 trials accepted into evidence, 29 (67%) also had relatively low validity scores (6 to 44)."
Even this source however, only states that the "RCTs <u>in this review</u> exhibited relatively low quality", and does not state that RCTs in general are "typically of low quality".
*<b>So, the question for uninvolved editors, is - does this constitute OR?</b>
] (]) 01:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:Please note: According to ], the text is for citing ]. There is that spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. ] 05:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, that diff is referring to a different problem, which I have not raised here. I do not think that the text above is appropriate anywhere. ] (]) 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC). It is also a misrepresentation of my comments - The article where the claim might be appropriate, and whether the claim itself is OR are two different problems - I have never stated that the text itself is appropriate. Please don't bring other disputes into this, and please respect that I am asking for input from <u>uninvolved</u> editors. ] (]) 06:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

;Shorter summary
*PMID 16574972 states ''Numerous systematic reviews of SM are available but they frequently arrive at vastly different conclusions.'' This source is therefore an excellent citation to support the statement that ''Many controlled clinical studies of spinal manipulation (SM) are available, but their results disagree,''
*PMID 16596892 examined trials on tension-type headache, cervicogenic headache, and migraine and stated ''Methodological scores ranged from 35 to 56 points out of a theoretical maximum of 100 points, indicating an overall poor methodology of the studies.''
*PMID 18404113 states that none of the available trials on lower back pain used the best method available - expertise-based randomized trial design.
::More citations on this point could be added, for example PMID 15989112 which states ''The effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for back pain remains uncertain and controversial. This is because of methodological weakness in many of the published clinical trials and also because of markedly opposing interpretations of the primary data by different reviewers.'' or PMID 8568990, which reviewed studies on lower back pain and stated ''Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized criteria list applied independently by two assessors (range, 0% to 100%). ..The methodological quality was low, with a median score of 23%.'' but I'm happy enough with how the current sources support the text. With so many sources available, I think the authors probably selected these three since they are the most recent reviews to address the topic. ] (]) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Per ], we are using the latest reviews available for the chiropractic article. ] 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:The issue being raised here is not the first half of the sentence. I don't see how raising it here makes this a shorter summary, more just an obfuscation of the issue.
:*PMID 16596892 only looked at 12 studies, ones which were focused on treatment of headaches. To extrapolate the narrow claims they made to an overall claim about studies in general is blatant OR.
:*PMID 18404113 only states that none of them used "the best method available", not that they are of low quality (something can be high quality, without being 'the best').
:*PMID 15989112 says that many of the trials are methodologically weak, not that the trials are typically weak. I would support changing the wording to say that "many are weak", because that would be reliably sourced.
:I don't know how you can be happy with how the current sources support the text when none of the sources actually support the text. ] (]) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

::That's my opinion, given as somebody who has not written any of the chiropractic article. If you don't like my opinion, I'm sure other people will comment, and perhaps other people's views on this will be closer to yours. ] (]) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
::: Tim, neither yours nor QuackGuru's opinion here are "outside opinions". You both have contributed in your own ways to the discussions at chiropractic. Please consider that DigitalC has specifically requested outside opinions here and that perhaps you and QuackGuru are interfering his/her goal here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't agree with the odd idea that commenting on an article that I have not contributed a single word to is somehow interfering with a call for outside opinions, but as I said, I do hope other uninvolved editors comment as well. ] (]) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Poster child for OR ==

] is largely comprised of unreferenced speculation and POV info. My own opinion is it needs to be hacked apart and probably 80% of its content deleted with extreme prejudice. Thoughts? <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 17:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:Absolutely. Most of that is like predicting a film will be made to come out in 2010, it's crystal ball gazing. Quite a few 'If x then y' statements. ] (]) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

::OK, I ] it (not all my edits), removing about half of it by byte size. (Additional help would be welcome!) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;]</span></small> 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I really would like help with this as whenever I remove any OR it gets replaced. The replaced text here seems clearly OR, as does this whole section . I don't want to get into an edit war which is why I have come here to get some comments. Thanks. ] (]) 06:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Users keep reverting to version of the article that talks about subgenres that could not be found to be based of off this type of music. There were citation needed tags up for a week for this and none could be found, but people are still reverting back to that version.

To quote another user "I think there is some ] here in classifying subgenres of art punk, and I don't see a lot of sources that back up the assertion that these are actually subgenres of art punk. Where sources exist specifically for art-punk these should be in the article, and if bands that have sources to support 'art-punk' as a description also have sources that use these subgenres as descriptions, that would give some legitimacy to associating these genres as part of art punk, but it needs to be demonstrated. Generally, I think effort needs to go into finding sources that specifically refer to 'art punk', and the article should then be based on that."

Could some of you weigh in on what should be done with the article?] (]) 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Food Chemical News source used in ] ==

I ] over at RS/N about this source, but ] by ] is that this is original synthesis. The article is entitled "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994 From 1985 Peak". Since the controversy centers around the health effects of aspartame, it is hard to see why this is synthesis. The information added:]<blockquote>In 1995, ] Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox reported that aspartame complaints represented 75% of all reports of adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981 to 1995. He stated that "there is still concern" about the substance and that "some people have an intolerance ".</blockquote>] | (] - ]) 18:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

::The article does not reference any "]". Therefore using it as evidence of any kind of "asparatame controversy" is baldly original research. ] (]) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:::That's what we call ]. The article has plenty of sources, including the ones which say aspartame is safe, which do not use the words "aspartame controversy". Wilcox mentions "concerns". Is he not talking about a controversy? Anyway, let's let uninvolved people comment. That's what this is for. You've said this is synthesis, but you're misusing or misinterpreting what ] is. Synthesis is when you take two sources and make a synthetic claim from them. This takes one source and the language that it uses directly. As far the source being directly related -- its title pretty much says it. The source is about the reported adverse health effects from aspartame. These are at the center of the controversy around aspartame.] | (] - ]) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

::::I haven't read the source, but on the face of it, II seems to have the better case. The aspartame controversy, legitimate or otherwise, is about claims that aspartame has adverse health effects. So, this report appears relevant, and the absence of the words "aspartame controversy" doesn't change this. OTOH, it's important to be sure that the FDA position is represented correctly. For example, saying "there is still concern" might mean that "the FDA is still concerned", or "even though aspartame is safe, there is still public concern", or someting in between.] (]) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for; for a little while, I was beginning to think I must be crazy. The source is a bit dated; I believe the source said the FDA also stopped taking these reports when related aspartame in 1995 (although I can't check until Monday when I have access to my workplace database). I believe the most recent source is a 1999 article in the ''FDA Consumer'', where the reporter states that the FDA regards it as basically safe and well-tested, and that is in the lead of the article. But that statement doesn't invalidate Wilcox's comments, or the fact that there have been a lot of adverse health effect reports. These reports were either generated by the controversy or caused the controversy; either way, clearly they are very directly related to the controversy! As far as the concern referenced by Wilcox, it is not clear whether he was talking about public concern or agency concern, but it's probably a bit of both, and it's probably outside of our purview to interpret exactly what he means. Anyway, I should probably try to keep the discussion to a less intimidating size for newer uninvolved people. ] | (] - ]) 07:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

People should not be commenting without reading the source. ] (]) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::I disagree. the purpose of this noticeboard is to allow uninvolved editors to comment. If the issue is clearly presented, they can make general comments without going into details. ] (]) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In particular, this user is doing a textbook case of synthesis: "if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." The source is directly related to reports of allergies to aspartame: NOT the aspartame controversy. If you can find a third-party source which indicates that this source is somehow relevant to the aspartame controversy, then that would allow us to consider your proposal (as it would at least no longer be an original research claim).] (]) 09:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

::II has an obviuos case here, the wikilawyering by ScienceApologist above is twisting words and terms in a ridiculous way.] (]) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
:::This question only arises because ] has been forked from ] in an unhelpful way (POV-fork). The whole of the controversy article should be merged back into Aspartame. But if that would result in an overly long article - I don't think it would - then the sub-article should be Health effects of aspartame. ] (]) 14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::IF so, the issue should not be discussed here. BTW, the article recently went through a deletion review resulting in a blatant Keep decision according to ].] (]) 08:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

:If the source is "directly related to reports of allergies to aspartame", why does the source never use the word 'allergies'? Did you even read the source? What are the last two words in it? ] | (] - ]) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

:Wikilawyering. The source says "there is still concern". Sounds like another way to say "controversy" to me. ] (]) 04:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. The "magic words" test will never work with many article titles, especially controversial ones where the article is given a name that approximates NPOV and most of the sources will have anything but a neutral POV. The source may still be inappropriate for other reasons, but that it doesn't use the exact phrase of the article title is a technicality at best. ] (]) 08:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

== A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps ==

] --''']''' (] ]) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

An editor continues to return this material to the article which appears to be violation of ]
. i.e. Taking sources talking about validity of particual degrees from a university and applying such reasoning to the subject of the article. I have reached my revert limit, and would request the OR material be removed and the page semi protected to prevent continued IP vandalism. -- ] 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

== A paragraph about the use of the terms Wilderness acquired diarrhea and Wilderness diarrhea ==

Is the following paragraph original research? Thanks.

::"Use of the terms 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' and 'wilderness diarrhea' has been limited to a small number of journal articles although it has been the subject of many. The term 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' has appeared in articles where the traveller is infected during a wilderness trip and may have symptoms during or after the trip,<ref name="Zell1992">{{cite journal
|author=Zell SC
|title=Epidemiology of Wilderness-acquired Diarrhea: Implications for Prevention and Treatment
|journal=J Wilderness Med
|volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=241–9
|year=1992
|url=http://www.wemjournal.org/pdfserv/i0953-9859-003-03-0241.pdf
|format=PDF|doi= }}</ref><ref name="Backer editorial 1992">{{cite journal
|author=Backer, Howard
|title=Wilderness acquired diarrhea (editorial)
|journal=Journal of Wilderness Medicine
|year=1992
|volume=3
|pages=237-240
|url=http://www.wemjournal.org/pdfserv/i0953-9859-003-03-0237.pdf
|format=PDF}}</ref> whereas the term "wilderness diarrhea" has appeared exclusively in articles where the trips are long enough so that the symptoms most likely appear during the trip.<ref name="Hargreaves2006">{{cite journal |author=Hargreaves JS |title=Laboratory evaluation of the 3-bowl system used for washing-up eating utensils in the field |journal=Wilderness Environ Med |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=94–102 |year=2006 |pmid=16805145 |doi= |url=http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=017&issue=02&page=0094 |quotation=Diarrhea is a common illness of wilderness travelers, occurring in about one third of expedition participants and participants on wilderness recreation courses. The incidence of diarrhea may be as high as 74% on adventure trips. …Wilderness diarrhea is not caused solely by waterborne pathogens, … poor hygiene, with fecal-oral transmission, is also a contributing factor}}</ref><ref name="Boulware2004">{{cite journal |author=Boulware DR |title=Influence of Hygiene on Gastrointestinal Illness Among Wilderness Backpackers |journal=J Travel Med |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=27–33 |year=2004 |pmid=14769284 |doi= }}</ref> But this is not clearly definitive because of the small number of articles that use the terms."

{{reflist}}


Please note that the above referenced articles are the only ones that I know of that have used these terms.

--] (]) 21:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

:It could be considered a synthesis to make that extrapolation. You could maybe allude to the point youre making by quoting the sources in a certain style without adding any assumptions, i.e. "Account X talked about wilderness diarrhea. Account Y, about short trips, talked about the risk of wilderness-acquired diarrhea", with no more elaboration. That doesn't exactly come out with the point you were trying to make, but it doesn't contradict it either and leaves room to flesh it out if sources are found for your point. But how wide is the scope of the article? We dont want to get into an "undue weight" problem either. ] (]) 04:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. I'm interested in your suggestion. Please copy the paragraph, paste it below, and edit it the way you think it should be. Thanks. --] (]) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
::P.S. Re your questions, you can check that at the article where the paragraph came from, ]. Also, please note that we don't have any references that specifically define the terms. There are no references that specifically say that the terms mean the same thing or that they mean different things. All we have to go on as far as the references are concerned was described in the paragraph. As far as I can see, the paragraph is not concluding what the meaning of terms is but is simply presenting what the state of the situation is regarding the limited use of the terms. --] (]) 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
:::The first sentence is unreferenced, and likely original research. The references need to verify what the text is stating, which is "The term 'wilderness acquired diarrhea' has appeared in articles...". If the references don't state this, and you are stating this based on the articles (that include the term), then it is original research. One shouldn't be describing articles, rather summarizing & paraphrasing them. ] (]) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would the editors here please put ] on their watchlists for a couple of weeks? This issue has been discussed at length (here, on the artcle's talk page, on my user talk page...), but Bob that this bit of original research be included in the article despite obvious violation of WP:OR and the opposition of every editor that has discussed it with him. I'd appreciate your support. ] (]) 23:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:See . --] (]) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Are claims that economic freedom is "controversial term" and that "As with freedom generally, there are various definitions, but no universally accepted concept of economic freedom" original research if they are based on this quote: "The content of freedom has been a subject of such controversy over the centuries that it would be extremely foolish to expect to resolve all that . It would be equally a mistake to look for one "authentic" characterization of the basic idea of freedom."?

Is it original research to use sources that say "freedom" as sources for claims about "economic freedom"? One user argues that "Any source that says "freedom" could be enhanced (or harmed) by certain economic policies, is talking about economic freedom." To me that doesn't make sense because economic policies can affect wide range of freedoms. For example, if some country would introduce a special tax that targets independent publishers who oppose government that measure would affect freedom of speech. ] ] 12:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

:I would agree that "Economic freedom" is a controvercial term. But it would be best to find a source that says this specifically. I would avoid using sources that talk about "Freedom" in general. ] (]) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:The argument is actually that the sources are discussing economic freedom, but they don't happen to string the words together there. In context, it makes sense. These sources, by the way, are: Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955), "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom", Ethics 65 (3) and Sen, Amartya, Rationality and Freedom, p. 9. I haven't looked at them closely just now (or I can't remember exactly what they said), but I believe that this is similar to the ] seen above with Food Chemical News. Since "economic" and "freedom" are not stringed together exactly, even though they appear on the same page, this is "OR". Anyway, Vision Thing, where exactly is that quote?

:Anyway, I just looked through Brofenbrenner. He says on page 161: "At the heart of the controversy ... on the nature of economic freedom". Look it up. If you want the full-text, drop a note on my talkpage and email me. Matter seems settled with that quote. ] | (] - ]) 21:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:I'll be in a bad position to actively defend my additions for the next few weeks, planning on spending some un-wiki time. If anyone wants the fuller context on whether material in the ] article is OR, I suggest checking out the ] and ]. ](]/]) 21:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

::ImperfectlyInformed, quote is from ''Rationality and Freedom'' p.9 and it was provided by Cretog8 on my request. As for Bronfenbrenner, he is a good source for describing views in the history section because his work is from 1955, and in my view he can't be used to describe situation today. ] ] 08:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

:::As is already evident, this has nothing to do with ], and everything to do with ]. VisionThing is clutching at every possible straw to exclude anything that would contradict his preferred view. Most ludicrously, VT wants to exclude Franklin D. Roosevelt as not notable enough. ] (]) 09:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Do you have some actual arguments concerning OR, or you came here just to slant me? ] ] 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::I think we can leave it at that, and see if any uninvolved readers want to take a look.] (]) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

== Second intifada ==

I'm having a dispute with another editor at ]. He has added links to a series of articles as references for the sentence "Some view the start to be the ] 2000 riots and injuries soon after ]'s visit to the ]/]." The sources are descriptions of the riots, and are reliable enough primary sources regarding them, but do not actually make the claim that September 28 was the start of the Second intifada, or that that "some view" it as the start. I've removed the references as a violation of ], and potentially of ]. However, another editor insists that because they are reliable sources, they can be added "as description of the events". The discussion is here: ]. I'd appreciate third party views. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:This appears to be a debate over whether to include background information about the riots. While there are a few editors that interpret SYNTH as every reference literally has to mention the title of the article, that's not workable for a variety of reasons. For instance, merged articles would become impossible. While the long-term solution would be to have a full-length article about the riots and put all the background information there, for the time being you could cite clauses separately i.e.: "Some sources view a series of riots on Sep 28, in which W, X, Y, Z happened (background info cites), as the start of a "second Intifada" (cite analysis pieces that specifically use the term ''Intifada''). ] (]) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

== Typographic terminology ==

There is a dispute between myself and another editor on ], and there is a great need for input from other editors. I believe the issue is related to ]/undue weight and ]. The argument is whether to include the link ] as a typographic classification. Is it original research to create a novel classification system that is not represented in any of our sources? Additionally, is it undue weight to link to ], when the vast majority of typographic texts don't even mention it? Only two sources have been provided so far, and apparently neither one is even discussing typographic classifications... scratch that, a third source has been provided, but I have generally ignored it as it is self-published on the user's personal website. And while not the COI noticeboard, perhaps that is another issue at play here as well. Anyway, there seems to be quite a large number of policy points tangled up in this mess, and both myself and the other party have been quite verbose on the talk page. I apologize for that, and would greatly appreciate the time anyone could put into weeding through and examining this dispute. Thanks!-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:I'm the other editor. :-) I believe that Andrew C is making far too much about NPOV/"Undue Weight"/OR. I'll try to summarize the arguments.
:#Classification of typefaces is a fairly marginal activity in any case. In 1954 ] both ] and ]. He overlooked ] but as these were confined to Ireland this is not particularly surprising.
:#Most books on typography (and there are not that many of those either) don't attempt to classify; they are concerned with other matters. A book may discuss typographic styles without attempting to put them into a classificatory framework.
:#In 1924 E. W. Lynam published ''The Irish Character in Print'', a discussion of 21 different Gaelic typefaces, ranging from 1571 to 1922. He describes the fonts and their differences but does not attempt to apply a vocabulary of subclassification. He does clearly distinguish Gaelic types from Roman types, and he also mentions the analogous distinction of Blackletter types from Roman types. He does not equate Blackletter types and Gaelic types.
:#In 1990 Mícheál Ó Searcóid presented at a TeX User's Group conference , an article on the origin, history and present-day usage of the Irish typeface.
:#In 1992 Dermot McGuinne (head of the department of Visual Communications at the College of Marketing and Design in Dublin) published ''Irish Type Design: A history of printing types in the Irish character''. He likewise describes carefully the different features of different Gaelic typefaces, in ten chapters about the different Gaelic type styles, and one chapter, "The Roman v. the Irish character" in which he also clearly distinguishes Gaelic from Roman typefaces. He does not attempt to apply a vocabulary of subclassification.
:#Brendan Leen of the Cregan Library, St Patrick's College, Drumcondra, published a web page ; it is not about Roman types or Blackletter types.
:#In 2005 Mathew D. Staunton's article appeared in ''La revue LISA'' (ISSN 1762-6153. Vol. III; n°1. 2005).
:#In 2000, ] (that's me) published a in which a subclassification of Gaelic typefaces was proposed. This has evidently been considered to be useful and at least somewhat authoritative as it has at least been linked to by , , , , and has been added to the articles corresponding to ] in and . (I guess you could claim that was an uncritical translation, but one might assume that the Italian and Spanish editors looked at the site and knew what they were doing. The article was published the year before the Misplaced Pages came into being, and four years before I ever started editing on the Misplaced Pages.
:#In 2002 Vincent Kinane's ''A Brief History of Printing and Publishing in Ireland'' was published by the National Print Museum of Ireland. This does not discuss classification, but it is interesting to note that the first book printed in Ireland was ''The Boke of Common Praier'' published in Blackletter in English in 1550. The first book printed in Irish was ''Aibidil gaeoidheilge agus Caiticiosma'' printed in 1571 in a hybrid Gaelic type (the first Gaelic typeface).
:#Everyone seems to agree that Blackletter type can be subclassified as (at least) Textualis, Rotunda, Schwabacher, and Fraktur
:#Everyone seems to agree that Roman type can be subclassified as (at least) Old style, Transitional, Modern, Slab serif, and Sans-serif
:#Everyone who knows about Gaelic type (minority type as it is) seems to agree that it can be subclassified as Angular, Uncial, Grotesque. And those who know about Gaelic type ''certainly'' do differentiate it from Roman type and Blackletter type.
:#Andrew C suggests that all of the above may violate ]. But I am not Lynam and Ó Searcóid or McGuinne; nor am I Staunton or Kinane or Leen, and they all distinguished Gaelic type from Roman type. My 2000 classification draws on external sources: the fonts themselves, Lynam, and McGuinne. Distinguishing Gaelic from Roman and Roman from Blackletter and Blackletter from Gaelic ''is'' typeface classification, and the sources cited above all make those distinctions. Sub-classifying any one of these forms is quite verifiable. If one says that Roman type X is "slab-serif", you can look at its serifs and see if this is true. If one says that Gaelic type Y is "angular", you can look at its "a" and see if this is true.
:#Andrew C suggests that my activity here may not violate ]. It is difficult to rationalize this alongside Misplaced Pages policy regarding ]. The central question here is "Is Gaelic type a top-level class alongside Blackletter type and Roman type?" Am I "neutral" as far as this question goes? Well... ''no'': I am quite sure that these three classes are distinct, even if Gaelic is the "smallest". But this view (that Gaelic type ≠ Roman type) is held by ''everyone'', specialist or not, in Ireland who has had anything to do with the ''cló Gaelach''.
:#] gives unique codes Latn to generic or Roman-type-specific text, and (We agree that the Roman ''alphabet'' and the Gaelic ''alphabet'' are both the same at the level of the ], but ] and ] are distinct. One of the chief identifiers is that the former is based on ], while the latter is based on ]. This is not Original Research, either. It is common knowledge.
:#Andrew C suggests that "undue weight" is given to ] if it is considered a top-level class alongside ] and ]. Now, nobody disputes that Gaelic type is in the minority. It was used in only one country for a minority language for 400 years. It has, however, got unique origins in insular letterforms and has had its own internal history of development. ] is "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"; well, I have named prominent adherents in Gaelic typography.
:#I'd better bring this to an end. ] comes to mind. Though my 2000 page is on my website, others have cited it, and Luc Devroye even used its terminology in his own description of various Gaelic typefaces. I don't know how many experts in Gaelic typography there are. Morley and Ó Duibhín and McGuinne are. Bolger will lecture on them tomorrow in Dublin (I'm looking forward to it). A number of people consider me to have some expertise in this area. Assuming that I do... I have still endeavoured to show how ''other'' specialists have distinguished Gaelic from Blackletter from Roman. I think I have a hard time understanding Andrew C's continuing doubt.
:#I'm glad to have this opportunity to discuss these matters. Do I have a conflict of interest? I do not believe so. I have an interest: to ensure that the Typography articles in the Misplaced Pages describe typeface classification accurately, and that Gaelic typefaces are not overlooked. -- ]·] 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
:#I have just learned this morning that Brian Doyle cited my 2000 Classification in his Master's Thesis for the Faculty of the Department of Linguistics, Northeastern Illinois University. -- ]·] 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not sure to what extent it proves anything, but ], published long before Michael or any of the rest of us were born, seems to put the Gaelic script on a par with Fraktur. —]] 09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::The rubrics are: German Alphabet (Fraktur); Latin Alphabet (Antiqua); Limited use of Fraktur along with predominant Antiqua; Irish script along with predominant Antiqua; Cyrillic Alphabet; Greek Alphabet; Arabic Alphabet; Kalmuck-Mongolian Script. (Boy, I'd love to have an original of that framed at home.) I agree with Angr: This classifies ] distinct from ] distinct from ]. -- ]·] 10:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::From reading the above, it sounds as if the basic classification is verifiable to reliable sources, but the subclassifications are not and may rely on OR. ] (]) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't agree. The subclassification of Gaelic type into Angular, Uncial, and Grotesque may have been devised by Michael Everson, but it has been published outside of Misplaced Pages already - indeed it was published before Misplaced Pages even existed. ] says, "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Michael's subclassification has been published, and has even been cited by others in their own research. Just because a Wikipedian is the one who has published the work doesn't make the work an unreliable source, and certainly doesn't make repeating it here OR. —]] 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Unless I missed something, since when is "uploading to a personal website" the same thing as being "published". Fails ]. As for being cited by others, these are blogs and personal websites that don't even "cite" the classification scheme that Evertype has proposed we include on the template (Angular, Uncial, Grotesque). I have to ask, are we reading the same links? -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Per ], "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." I trust we can all agree that Michael is an established expert on this topic, and his subclassification has been cited by others, not only in their blogs and personal websites, but in a master's thesis as well. —]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::This is a borderline case, and I believe you are pushing the limits of notability and reliability. To the point, the master's thesis doesn't utilize Everson's classification system, but merely states ''Everson (2000) tabulated and categorized more than 100 Gaelic typefaces created between 1567 and 2000.'' The words "angular" and "grotesque" do not appear in the thesis, nor does "grotesque" appear in any of the webpages (scratch once at Luc's). That said, I do agree that multiple sources have describe two variations of historical Irish typefaces related to Irish manuscript culture (the rounded related to uncial, and the more angular one related to later minuscules and native tongue manuscripts--and this isn't just on webpages, McGuinne discusses these two in his book). But I think the detail of these issues can be resolved further at the ] article. This is about the typographic terms template. I believe my comment below is more to the point. I'll keep in mind your assessment of Everson's own work. Thanks for your input thus far.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::We may be at the edge of the limits, but I don't think we have crossed over into OR. The research was done years ago. I stipulate that "grotesque" should not at this time be on the template. -- ]·] 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you for that, earnestly.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Blueboar's comment ''it sounds as if the basic classification is verifiable to reliable sources''. Evertype proposes that the three basic classifications are "Blackletter" "Roman" and "Gaelic". Not a single source mentions just these three in such a manner. NOT A SINGLE SOURCE. Sure we have multiple sources, when discussing the history of printing in the Irish language which discuss the use of two different character styles (in some texts referred to as alphabets), Irish vs. Roman. Then we have other sources that discuss blackletter along side serif typefaces, sans serif, slab serf, etc. How is mixing these sources to come up with a novel classification scheme not found anywhere (in published, reliable sources) NOT original synthesis? We have to also keep in mind that Irish is not unique in that typographers cut special typefaces in order to print in other languages as well. I think there could be a place for the ] link on the template, surely, but the current state, and the expanded Evertype proposal is original synthesis, and undue weight.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

:Let me get this straight. This isn't for a paragraph in an article about typefaces. This is for Template:Typography terms, a VDE that's included at the bottom of various pages. And the debate is about whether to include "Gaelic" at the end of "Blackletter · Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif · Gaelic". And there's dozens of very specialized typesetting terms, i.e. ''Hamburgefonts'', also in the template, so I don't see any "undue weight". I think we all agree there is such a thing as a "Gaelic" or "Celtic" typeface; we've all seen it before. I really don't see any "original research" happening in the template. ] (]) 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually the current proposal is to separate Roman, Blackletter, and Gaelic in the template, since the template is defective because '''"Blackletter · Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif · Gaelic"''' places both Blackletter and Gaelic at the ''same'' level as subclassifications of Roman, which they really are not (not even in sources that classify Blackletter and Roman only). So the current proposal is:
::::'''Blackletter type''': Textualis · Rotunda · Schwabacher · Fraktur
::::'''Roman type''': Old style · Transitional · Modern · Slab serif · Sans-serif ·
::::'''Gaelic type''': Angular · Uncial · Grotesque
:::Angr has a point about subclassifications of Gaelic not (yet) having articles; I would however say that "Angular (linking for now to "Insular") and "Uncial" would be sufficient. -- ]·] 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::I really appreciate your feedback. Excuse me while I briefly respond. My concern is that we have under the heading "classification" a list of terms generally found in most typographic texts, and then "Gaelic" which is a very specialized, minority use word. Your rational sounds like we could include "sci-fi fonts" or "techno fonts" as a classification as well, because we've all see Star Wars and Star Trek logos. Or that we could include "typewriter fonts" or "heavy metal fonts" or any number of other "groups". The concern is that typography scholars have significant ways to group major text typefaces, and mixing in a classification that isn't part of that grouping seems to me like we are creating a novel or synthesized, original list. Does that make sense? If it does, can you try to clear up my confusion and explain to me how it isn't a case of combining source A with source B to create conclusion C. I think a way to address my concern would be to split up the classification section, the major from the minor, or something along those lines (and clearly include Gaelic somewhere, just not next to sans serif, old style, etc). Do you see any sense in working towards a compromise like that? Thanks for your time!-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 04:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Is there a hundred-year-old map from a German encyclopedia showing where sci-fi fonts, techno fonts, typewriter fonts, and heavy metal fonts are used in Europe? Is there a four-letter ] for a sci-fi font, a techno font, a typewriter font, or a heavy metal font? And more to the point, since what we're talking about is a navigation box, do we have articles on ]s, ]s, ]s, or ]s? The Gaelic type is in every way comparable to Fraktur, and putting it in the template is not OR, nor does it violate NPOV. I agree the subclassifications of the Gaelic type probably don't belong in the navbox, but only because we don't have articles on them. —]] 10:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::To Andrew I would reiterate what I said to him elsewhere: Everyone knows that ] and ] are ], but so is ]—even if most people have never heard of it. If the seminal classification of typefaces was made by Vox in 1954, and if Vox did not know about Gaelic type, that means nothing more than that he didn't know about it. ''Everyone'' who writes about Gaelic type distinguishes it from Roman type. The whole Gaelic-Roman dispute is entirely parallelled by the ]. I'm not just making this stuff up, Andrew. I was at a lecture last night at the ] in Dublin and it was all about Gaelic and Roman type. Everyone in the room shared a common reference—even if it is a reference that ''you'' do not share or that you do not find in sources available to you—and your protestations that "''mixing in a classification that isn't part of that grouping seems to me like we are creating a novel or synthesized, original list''" is just a sign that you don't know this material as well as I or others do. However, given your comment about splitting up the classification section, and given Squidfryerchef's comment, I think that there are grounds to revise the Template. -- ]·] 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, my analogy fails, but I think my actual point stands. ISO codes have nothing to do with type design, but instead alphabet/script. What is the ISO code for a transitional serif typeface? What is the ISO code for sans serif? Where on the 1900s map does it mention sans serif, or old-style, or modern? Again, it is about scripts/Alphabets, not type design. Furthermore, the 1900s map includes more than "Blackletter, Antiqua, and Irish". It also contains Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, and "Kalmükisch-Monoglische" (which I believe refers to ], which was replaced in the 1920s, and now is possibly no longer used for western typography). I would not be opposed to having a section that contains Greek, Cyrillic, Blackletter, and Gaelic (and perhaps others). But it is inappropriate to mix serif based classifications not found on your 1901 map with the script based classifications. Mixing the two is original synthesis, no?-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think you should really stop the "undue weight" argument now. You have not made anything near a plausible case. Regarding the map, yes, it contains Greek, Cyrillic, and Arabic, but those are different scripts. Gaelic is Latin script, not anything else, and so that observation is a red herring. Fraktur coexisted with Antiqua just as Irische Schrift coexisted with Antiqua. (By the way—as I have said before—Lynam does mention all three and he does not equate any two of them.) You are ''right'' it is inappropriate to mix serif-based classifications (which are subclassifications of Roman type) with ''either'' Blackletter ''or'' Gaelic in the template, and I have now corrected this mistake. I do not believe that you have made a case that distinguishing Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic at the top level of classification is Original Research. I do not believe you have made a convicing case that this synthesis is novel either. And I do not believe that your suggestion that we are giving Gaelic type "undue weight" is tenable. What ''would'' be useful now is to do as Angr suggests, and as you yourself suggested, and work on improving the articles so they better reflect what we now have in the Template. -- ]·] 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a novel synthesis, where are the sources? Is it too much to ask for a single source that classifies Latin typefaces into three (and only three) distinct classifications: Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic? Can we quote from that source verbatim?-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps it is. You know what? Every sentence in the Misplaced Pages does not have a footnote. Having said that, would you like me to mention Lynam 1924 '''''yet again'''''? He mentions the Roman-Gaelic dispute right alongside mentioning the ]. He does not equate Gaelic with Blackletter. Further, we have seen a map from 1901 which distinguishes these three varieties of Latin script. Moreover, we have consensus amongst ''all'' scholars that Roman ≠ Gaelic. And in generalist typographic materials available to ''you'', we have consensus that Roman ≠ Blackletter. Your thesis seems to be that if we don't have a book somewhere that says what I am saying, we must abandon all hope and assign Gaelic to the category of separate script, like Greek and Cyrillic. And frankly, that thesis is ridiculous. ''You really '''do''' have to listen to the experts sometimes.'' I am quite sure that what we have been discussing here meets ] that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I have, as I have said, named prominent adherents in Gaelic typography. In fact I was in a room full of people last night who agreed with me about this. (I mentioned this classification dispute.) So yes, right now, it is too much to ask for a ''single'' source that does what you want. Why? Because the people who wrote generalist books you are familiar with overlooked Gaelic type. That does ''not'' mean that Gaelic type has no classification within Latin-script typography. it does ''not'' mean that Gaelic type is "foreign" like Greek or Cyrillic. It means that some generalists overlooked Gaelic type. And those specialists who ''have'' dealt with Gaelic type distinguish it from Roman type, and none of them ever call it Blackletter, and Lynam who did mention Blackletter didn't equate the two. I don't think there's any justification for insisting on further doubt here. -- ]·]
::'''Comment''': I am finding this discussion far too technical for this noticeboard. Please remember that those of us who reply to your questions here do so because we are familiar with the ''policy''... we do not necessarily know much of anything about typography. So, could someone please outline both sides of this dispute in a way that someone who knows nothing about typography can understand? ] (]) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry for all this. My outstanding concern (as the template currently stands) is that we have a "classification" that says there are three major groupings: "Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic". My concern is that this is novel (original) classification scheme. I also believe the listing lacks context, and has hierarchy (or weight) issues. Evertype's concern is that if we used exclusively the major existing classification scheme's it would exclude (rightly so) ], his pet project in real life, and would be ignoring a notable minority grouping. I think there is a way to compromise that simply isn't a matter of correcting the oversights of major classification schemes (which I believe is what has happened in the current state of the template). I don't want to remove the link, I just believe it needs to be appropriately contextualized. I believe Evertype is completely fine with the current state of the template, and seems to oppose making it clear that there aren't simply three main groups "Blackletter, Roman, and Gaelic", at least if we are following sources. If you have specific concerns or questions about typography, I'd be glad to try to explain more.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::The purpose of the template is to help users navigate. The NPOV principle does not apply in the same way that it does in article mainspace. So I don't think there is any problem if the template shows "Blackletter", "Roman" "Celtic". To give an analogy: if I was developing a template for "Lakes of France" and I included "Lakes of the Indre", "Lakes of Bouches-du-Rhone" but not "Lakes of Seine-Maritime", that would not imply that there are no lakes in Seine-Maritime or that they are somehow unimportant. The probable explanation would simply be that we do not have an article on them right now. It is not an NPOV issue. Please get back if there are complexities I haven't understood. ] (]) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm... interesting. I believe this isn't a case of us having an incomplete classification scheme because we don't have articles on those topics yet. I believe Evertype thinks there are three and only three major classification groups "Blackletter" "Roman" and "Gaelic", something not supported by sources. If I am wrong, then I'm curious if there is more than 3 major groups, and I'm curious where we should put information about non-Latin western typography and Cyrillic, Greek, etc.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::"His pet project"? That is ''most'' uncivil, Andrew. I am to others, at least, a respected expert in Gaelic type and design. -- ]·] 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::There is no ] code for "transitional serif typeface" because that is a subdivision of ]. ISO 15924 allows users to indicate both "Latg" for ] and "Latf" for ] in bibliographical contexts precisely because these are unique from each other and from generic Latin. That's a kind of classification, by the way. Even if it wasn't made by Vox in 1954. -- ]·] 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::OK, Lets take a step back and see where Evertype and Andrew agree... Do you both agree that something called "Gaelic type" actually ''exists''? ] (]) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, of course I do. -- ]·] 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Then is the dispute simply a matter of figuring out how and where to list it on the template? ] (]) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Andrew (for whom I shall, cheekishly, speak here) thinks that because no general text on typography makes a specific distinction between Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic, that the three cannot be considered to be a top-level classification (as you can see in the ''current'' revision of the template) simply because no general text on typography specifically describes this. Now, as I have said, every sentence in this encyclopaedia does not have a footnote, but never mind that. Every text on Gaelic type distinguishes it from Roman type (whether or not the ATypI classification—which is a popular source for texts on general typography—mentions Gaelic or not). The ATypI classification does distinguish Roman from Blackletter. Both Roman and Blackletter have ATypI-published sub-classifications (Latn: slab-serif, transitional, etc.; Latf: fraktur, rotunda, schwabacher); to date I am the most notable person to have proposed a formal sub-classification for Gaelic types (not trying to hide anything here); that classification has been referenced by others (on their websites). But that was published a long time ago. So, because generalist typographic texts have not made a three-way distinction, Andrew believes that the Misplaced Pages should ignore Gaelic types in the classification. I can find no reason why this is a good idea. There is plenty of cumulative evidence that Gaelic types are unique. For one, they are not Carolingian. For another, they were developed for Ireland and used from 1571-1960. I don't think the Misplaced Pages should ignore this, even if ATypI's 1954 classification ignored Gaelic type. -- ]·] 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::OK, let's see what we have here. We agree that the Gaelic typeface exists, and we agree that it is not a subcategory of Roman or Blackletter type families. What we don't agree on is whether Gaelic is important enough to be at the top of a three-way classification tree. We do agree though it's notable enough to merit a WP article, something that keeps decorative or "sci-fi" typefaces from being added to the template. My opinion is that if in the future there were more articles on various Latin typefaces that had long use in various countries, but were neither Roman or Blackletter, then they could be combined with Gaelic in a new toplevel category called "regional". But because they don't yet exist, then the Roman/Blackletter/Gaelic division is the most appropriate; we wouldn't create a "miscellaneous" category with only one member. To me, "]" governs here. As far as the original research policy goes, that's for facts and figures. It's to prevent WP from containing facts that are only attributable to Misplaced Pages. It doesn't apply to how much weight to we want to give to a particular topic or what color to do the pie charts in. Those decisions are up to a consensus of editors, and yes it is OK to do your own deductions on the talk pages to argue for or against. ] (]) 02:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Squids take on this seems right to me. ] (]) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I still fill uneasy about this, but the current version has grown on me (though I still think there is probably a better solution). My energy on this topic has run low. Anyway, thanks. I appreciate everyone's time and input. -]&nbsp;</sup>]] 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

== Panzuriel ==

There is a dispute on the about whether the OR cleanup template is appropriate for the article ]. The article itself contains such unsupported opinions as:
<blockquote>
"Although Panzuriel's worshippers generally have no creation myths of their own, other sources attribute to Panzuriel a protean creative power. According to myth, Panzuriel acts with the other gods to strengthen the evil races of the sea. Because the others accept Panzuriel's help, they grow increasingly under his control."
</blockquote>
I would be grateful if someone independent of the dispute would make their views known on the ]. --] (]) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

:Responded on talk page. ] (]) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

== Horned God ==

We are engaged in a dispute at the moment at ], about what is and isn't permissible in the article under ] policy. The "Horned God" is a term that encompasses a number of different ancient deities from diverse cultures throughout Europe, Asia and even further afield, all of which are depicted with horns or antlers. The gods are linked by the disputed theories of a number of authors and historians, most notably ] and ], but there have been others since, and probably previously as well. These writers claim that the different horned gods have common historical roots (or possibly — but I can't offhand cite an author who claims this — that they represent an archetypal principle or an actual god that reappears independently in different cultures).

The article is about that ] theory, and we have no disagreement about discussing the theories of Murray and Gardner, the role that the Horned God has since taken under modern neopaganism, and criticism of the claimed origins of this deity by historians such as ], who treats the god as pseudo-historical, actually derived from Romantic depictions of the god Pan, and from the Christian devil.

So far, so good. The problem comes with other authors who make no specific reference to Murray or Gardner, but discuss the same horned deities and the same scenarios of cultural interrelationship, providing evidence for or against. One example is Georg Luck, currently a Professor Emeritus at Johns Hopkins University and expert on magic in late antiquity, who provides an account virtually identical to Murray's regarding a syncretic horned god of Europe: he states that the Greek Pan was syncretised with a Celtic horned deity, resulting in a powerful horned deity around which the "''pagani''", those resistant to conversion, rallied; this god, according to Luck, provided the prototype of the Christian devil. Another example is the archeologist Timothy Taylor, an acknowledged expert on the ], who claims that the figures depicted on the cauldron, traditionally interpreted as Celtic gods, are in fact stereotyped representations of Indian deities. This includes the deity normally equated with the Celtic Cernunnos, which Taylor suggests is representing ], an ancient Indic cattle god. Margaret Murray proposed exactly the same connection between the Gundestrup cauldron's "Cernunnos" and Pashupati.

So citing these two scholars, Luck and Taylor, would potentially provide some support to a disputed theory; but can we legitimately refer to them in the article? They seem eminently relevant, and provide interesting contextual information on how the Horned God theory sits against wider academic thinking. I'm sure there are other examples too, historians who don't directly mention the names of Murray or Gardner but fairly directly address their theories, or elements of their theories.

I note again that while Murray and Gardner are among the most notable proponents of the theory, they are not its only supporters, and the fact that they are not mentioned specifically by, say, Luck or Taylor, seems neither here nor there to me.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I will advise others at ] that I have raised this question, so we should have some comments below. ]] 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::Can you discuss what Luck and Taylor say ''seperately'' from Murry and Gardner? If I understand the dispute, the OR issue stems from attempting to tie the various sources together. If you simply lay out what the various sources say (with clear attribution as to who says what), and don't try to link them together, then I would think there would be no OR involved. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::The first thing I need to say is that Luck and Taylor are just ''my'' examples given here to illustrate the dilemma; neither author has specifically been challenged yet. But we are arguing over the ''principle'' on which they will eventually stand or fall, that is, ''can we mention any source that doesn't specifically refer to Murray's or Gardner's theory''? One editor is telling us this would be ], but I feel otherwise, since I don't think we're intending to impose our own interpretations on their theories or represent them as backers of Margaret Murray herself; we're simply hoping to provide information on how the concept of a cross-cultural Horned God is seen by academia. Most academic historians and archeologists would avoid mentioning Murray in either support or condemnation, I believe, even if they are aware of her work; she is too much persona non-grata. But should this prevent us mentioning their findings? Is it to be an article only about the shoddiness of Murray's and Gardner's working methods, or can we legitimately expand it into a serious discussion of the Horned God as treated by a wider group of people: flakes, hucksters and respected scholars alike? ]] 23:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I think the argument is essentially that by not limiting ourselves to sources that directly reference Murray or Gardner, we would be creating a ]. We might have to wait for ] to clarify this, though. ]] 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Looking at the article, I do not see the problem with using the theories of these workers. The article is about the general concept in various manifestations, not specifically about either Murray or Gardner--if it were the bio article on either of them, I might give a different view. I think the article would gain by giving an account of the most important different approaches. it's not as if there were going to be one actual "consensus' on a topic like this. Fuzzypeg, just what sort of extraneous material are you concerned about? ''']''' (]) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Music to my ears, DGG. And in my attempt to explain things neutrally, I might not have made my own position clear enough: I hope to add such material myself, whereas another user is threatening wholesale deletion of anything he doesn't approve of, and has even threatened to turn the article into a dab page. I want to clarify the ] policy so we can get back to editing as normal. I'm not looking for free license to add whatever I want to the article, I just feel he's over-applying the policy.
:::::The ] policy says: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." So if the cited sources ''do'' reach the same conclusion, and ''are'' directly related to the article subject, then we're fine, right? The only question remaining is: ''what is the article subject?'' And I propose that subject ''not'' be limited to just criticising Gardner and Murray. ]] 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::: It depends entirely on how the data is presented in the context of the article. --] (]) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The debate is actually quite simple. It's about the removal of a list of deities which are not related to the subject of the article in reliable sources. The sources (where cited) do not propose that the deities relate to the Horned God (the subject of the article), and therefore the article is misrepresenting those sources, and misleading readers. Much of the disputed content is totally unsourced. The sources which would be required to establish the links have not presented themselves over the past 6 weeks, despite frequent posts to the talk-page by several editors on the subject. It is highly unlikely that these sources exist at all.

Where the "historical origins" fringe-theories are discussed, they need to be summarised and not have all the evidence simply re-iterated in a list which makes no reference to them being part of a fringe-theory as article currently does. The fringe-theory needs to be explained, not restated.

This has been cross-posted at ], where another discussion which missed this central debate was started, in the hope that we can establish a way forward with this article. ] (]) 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

:I want to improve this list of deities, by adding more well-cited material explaining how these deities have been equated by various Horned God theorists. I and other editors are holding back until we can resolve some points of policy, so that our work will not be unilaterally deleted ''again'' while we're still just figuring out structure. Almost all (possibly all) the deities in the list are mentioned by Murray, Gardner or both, and I believe most of them are also mentioned by the critical historian Ronald Hutton, in discussion of Murray's theory. I'd have to check my books at home for this. The deities ''are'' related to the subject of the article, and yes, they're mentioned in reliable sources, not just in ]. I can't see a problem either way, though.
:I was hoping for more offers of advice, but my requests for help here and at ] seem to have achieved little more than to spill the argument into multiple pages. Time to look into the next phase of dispute resolution, perhaps. ]] 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

== Disaster Risk Management in East Asia ==

The article ] has survived AfD but it seems wrong to me. The article began as a direct copy of a World Bank report that the article's author was involved in producing. After getting dinged on the copyright violation, the author paraphrased the article. It's still entirely a publication of original results, albeit in a different format from the original report and the original report is the only reference cited. it isn't an encyclopedic article where a topic is given and then core, neutral information about the topic is given. Instead, it's a report written for a specific purpose and written from a specific perspective. The fact that it remains makes a mockery of the policy, "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought," because, evidently, Misplaced Pages does. ] (]) 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:There may be many other issues involved here, but to make one thing clear: a report for the World Bank counts as a reliable independent source. I suspect that the article may not be necessary though. ] (]) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Had a look at the article and AfD now. The big problem is that it is not about disaster risk management in east Asia, but about a set of activities of the World Bank. Perhaps it could be merged with "emergency management", where the World Bank's role already has a small section. ] (]) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::By definition of "independent", it is not an ''independent'' source if the person citing it is the person who wrote it. And this article ''is'' original research. It isn't the same thing as a person writing an encyclopedic article that ''is'' a genuinely encyclopedia-style article, written from scratch as such, and finding it convenient to cite, judiciously, as if at arm's length, his own works in places where anyone else writing the same article might appropriately make the same citations. This is a case of a person treating her own work as the rough draft for the article. ] (]) 17:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::It's a ] and problematic for that reason. But sometimes material added in this way is worth keeping. It is quite a different case from someone simply adding their own ideas ''without'' getting them published by an organisation as reputable as the World Bank. ] (]) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


The following sentence in dispute contains original research not supported by the sources at hand:
== ] ==


{{tq|Polling throughout the election cycle showed that after his indictments began Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle,<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-07-31 |title=Why Trump's poll lead went up after criminal indictments |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66274979 |access-date=2024-11-24 |work=BBC |language=en-GB |archive-date=November 23, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241123093316/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66274979 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ordoñez |first=Franco |title=Raising money and poll numbers, Donald Trump stays 'Teflon Don' amid indictments |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/08/04/1191279975/raising-money-poll-numbers-donald-trump-teflon-don-indictments-criminal-charges |access-date=November 24, 2024 |website=NPR.org |archive-date=November 29, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241129192314/https://www.npr.org/2023/08/04/1191279975/raising-money-poll-numbers-donald-trump-teflon-don-indictments-criminal-charges |url-status=live }}</ref> and after his conviction in New York, polling among republicans showed that the conviction made 34% of them "more likely" to vote for Trump.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-03 |title=What the first polls after Trump's conviction show — and don't show |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-guilty-verdict-first-polls-rcna155226 |access-date=2024-11-24 |website=NBC News |language=en |quote="In fact, in the same poll, 55% of Republican voters said the verdict didn’t make a difference to their vote, and 34% said it made them more likely to vote for Trump."}}</ref>}}
The article's talk page says that the article has been referred here, but I can't find the section (probably because the article was originally written in August). The real problems might be reliable sources, recentism, and ] but there certainly is a bunch of original synthesis going on. Especially with the section that essentially says that TODAY is a market bottom (the DOW Jones Industrial Average went up 400 points and somebody wants to predict that it will keep going up. I will delete all unreliable sources (that means little will be left) and perhaps start a deletion request. ] (]) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:the previous notice here is in archive 4, October 6 ] (]) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


The first half of the sentence was by myself, as the two sources for the claim did not state that "Polling ''throughout'' the election cycle" showed that after his indictments "Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which ''would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle''". The sources ''cannot'' make this claim, as they were both published in 2023, over 1 year before the end of the election cycle in 2024. My removal of this was by ], who claimed there was no original research. ] (]) 01:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


:Being tactful in my reply here to add the following:
:Hi, this is a general query, I've been checking out some pages, and checking out guidelines, with a view to contributing, but I'm a bit confused.An article like that listed in the heading - one of many examples that seem to fit the bill in terms of causing me some confusion - clearly contradicts the ] guidelines but it appears to have gone entirely unnoticed. I don't see one reputable published secondary source to support the contents as currently presented.
:In the referenced text, there are ''three'' references, two contemporary citations to the polling "bump" post-indictment in Nov 2023, and one which notes polling post-conviction in June 2024, more than half a year later, and elsewhere in the page is already reference to exit polling support almost a full year from initial reference (in addition to the obligatory links to the main 24 POTUS election page with more focused data/info).
:I mean, if there is no published research on the history of a subject isn't it then synthesis to create one and support it with web hosted cites including interviews, reviews, forum entries etc. (the example above also has multiple non-english sources).
:My rebuttal is that it '''''is''''' OR to make authoritative statements with no RS to validate the ''substance'' or ''merit'' of the statement, but it is '''''not''''' OR to cite RS sources containing and explaining datasets and make a statement of fact based on the data cited. If ''needed'', further citations can easily be found to continue to validate the claim, for example which show any variation from Nov 23-Jun 24 as within margin of error, but my approach on WP is that there is very rarely a valid reason to cite more than 1 or 2 sources to validate a claim that is not a serious point of contention. That is my $0.02(USD). More than happy to participate more if needed or requested. Thank you. ] (]) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:According to wiki guidelines I have read no one should have any objection if I simply scrubbed pages like this because of a general lack of verifiable secondary sources.
::First, the third source does ''not'' make the claim that because of Trump’s indictments, his polling numbers remained up ''throughout'' the election cycle ''because of'' the indictments. It is also published in June of 2024, still before the end of the election cycle.
:If there are no answers here can someone point me to a place where these issues can be clarified because it seems to me that original research is a huge grey area (elephant in the room} on wikipedia - on the one hand it's against policy but on the other, as long as no one objects, it's OK. Very confusing, plus the implications do no bode well for wiki's reputation.
:Any thoughts, tips, or general musings might clarify this for me! Thanks. ] (]) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::This is a good place to begin with your query. If I've understood you correctly, you think that the article lacks independent references and you want to know if it can be deleted on that basis. I've had only a quick look and I tend to agree that the referencing is not good. I tagged it as in need of further references. But there are one or two things cited that may be independent - it would need some more eyes on it. But no, articles cannot be "simply scrubbed" just for this reason. They can be put through the ] process, so that users have a chance to comment. I think in this case the tag may prove to be a spur to people to pull out some independent sources that mention this musical genre. ] (]) 16:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::OK thanks for your feedback, but I still see some kind of grey area on here regarding OR, it seems it stays unless someone objects, and even if the ones objecting are operating within the remit of policy on OR the onus is on them to validate a case for removing said OR based content. It's as if there's an attitude that if you wait long enough a verifiable secondary source will turn up; but what if you waited so long that the secondary source is based on information that started it's life as wikipedia OR? it really seems like there is an unspoken policy on the creation of ] content; in the hope that through some memetic process the information will take on a life of it's own. ] (]) 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::The issue is one of courtesy... and the intent of WP:Verifiability... the key to deletion of material is whether it ''can'' be verified, not whether it ''currently is'' verified. When you come across information that is unsorced, the first thing you should do is see if you can source it yourself. If you can not source it, and you still think the material is doubtful or is OR, it is certainly appropriate to question it... however courtesy demands that you give other editors a chance to respond to your questioning ... and to fix the problem by locating and providing sources. So, the standard proceedure is to tag the article, section or statement in question, (and leave a message on the talk page outlining your concerns) and then wait a while. If, after a reasonable time there is no response, then you can remove the questionable material. (Note: if the article is a biography of a living person, or "BLP", the rules are stricter, you should remove unsourced and questionable material as a first step and leave a message as to why on the talk page). It may be that you can solve the issue by removing a single sentence or paragraph... it may be that you end up gutting the article back to a stub... or it may be that the article is in such bad shape that the best bet is to propose it for outright deletion at AfD. That depends on the article and what is wrong with it. ] (]) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


::The new source you provided in your comment above was not in the sentence at hand, and does not even say that Trump's indictments resulted in a polling bump. It instead reports on people's opinions on the indictments, not on Trump’s overall poll numbers. The poll is based on the question, not his overall polling numbers. It is also a primary source rather than a secondary source, so using that source to make broader claims is synthesis. It is also published in June, so it still wouldn't satisfy your claim that his poll numbers went up ''throughout'' the election cycle because of his indictments. ] (]) 15:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== Research papers from academic sites ==


::: I agree with BootED that some OR is involved in the sentence, "Polling throughout the election cycle showed that after his indictments began Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle." A couple of factors to notice: (1) the indictments didn't all happen at once; if it is really true that his poll number experienced an increase after "his indictments began" you'd have to go back and pick up the first indictment and see what happened to his poll numbers starting then; this, however, would then make a complicated claim to draw all the way through to November 2024 since at that time he was still seeking the Republican nomination and polls were about his standing versus other Republicans; (2) his polling numbers vacillated during the general election season and experienced a dip after the Harris nomination; (3) to the extent that some Republicans looked on him more favorably because of the indictments (this is born out in some polls), I don't see an RS that supports that idea that his relatively robust poll numbers which Harris was only briefly able to interrupt was because of the indictments. It would be good to not confuse correlation with causation and not to imply it unless RSes do; but even the correlation seems like OR. There probably are some valuable or interesting sentences that COULD be included about the impact of his indictments but the way it is said now rolls way too much up into one OR overarching claim. ] (]) 15:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
:::I feel it is important to not misconstrue what the article as written actually says. The wording is:
::: "Polling ''throughout'' the election cycle showed that ''after his indictments began'' Trumps poll numbers saw an ''immediate rise'' which ''would remain'' throughout the ''rest of the election'' cycle."
:::What is being communicated to the reader? Trump had X% polling before his first indictment, just after the first indictment those numbers saw an immediate Y% increase to Z%, and that Y% gain remained for the rest of the cycle. It is '''not''' asserting that his numbers remained at Z% for the rest of the cycle, just that the Y% increase remained, i.e. he never saw X% after that point.
:::Here is an equal but opposite question: Did Trumps polling in the 2024 election cycle post-indictment 1 ever get at/near/below his polling pre-indictment 1? The answer is plainly no, based on all available data, at every stage of the election.
:::But to the point of OR, this really feels like a mistake seen time and again, summed up as "If a RS can not be quoted as saying a specific thing, then it is OR to say that thing at all in WikiVoice." WV is '''not''' a quotation method, it is used to give a summary '''based''' on RS. It is not OR to summarize the data and RS. RS verify the assertion (again, the Y%, not the Z%), and further RS citations can and are easily obtained which reinforce this. If the issue is "Needs more/better citations", that is achieved within a half hour, but we must keep in mind ] and be reasonable about it. How many RS are needed to ''reasonably'' validate the claim? Do we '''need ''' a poll from each month of the entire cycle? Every quarter? ] (]) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You don't need a poll from every month, you need one reliable secondary source published after the election that directly makes the claims you admit you made based on your own interpretation of data. ] (]) 03:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, it is bluntly false to claim SYNTH to the other citation. That was such a wild assertion to make. Its an Emerson College poll. What in the world is primary about this? Explain the leap to asserting it is SYNTH here. ] (]) 16:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The polling data universally verifies this summary. It shows Trump at X% pre-Indictment 1, it shows a significant Y% increase post-indictment 1 to Z% ratings, and confirms that at no point did the Y% "go away" over time, instead remaining for the rest of the cycle, proven by the fact that he never returned to X% levels afterward. If the summary/assertion had no data to confirm, and was simply ripping bits and pieces of RS to cobble together the assertion with no actual underlying foundation of RS/proof for the assertion itself, that would be SYNTH. That is not the case here. The case here is that RS data verifies the assertion, Trump never saw his numbers go back down to where they had previously been. That is a fact, clearly apparent by the data itself. It is not OR to state numbers went up and cite the data, it is also not OR to state they did not return to previous levels and cite the data.
::::What concerns me more is the combined assertion you've made that using Emerson College polls as a citation is somehow "primary source" to this. How? I sincerely am curious how you arrive at that conclusion. Everything is primary to something, but how this poll is primary to this discussion is inconceivable to me. ] (]) 19:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The issue is not with the pollster. Primary versus secondary sources is best described by ]. The primary source you pointed to does not make the claim you say it does. ] (]) 03:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The claim is one of data. "Data shows X". Every source I have provided is in support of that claim, and does indeed strengthen that claim.
::::::SYNTH would be:
::::::Source 1- "Immigrants are pouring across Southern border in record numbers."
::::::Source 2- "Record numbers of illegal drugs flowing across Southern border."
::::::WIkiVoice summary- "Immigrants are bringing record numbers of illegal drugs across the Southern border."
::::::That is SYNTH.
::::::Again, the WV assertion here is not that. It is "X% increased by Y% to Z%, and the Y% remained". Every source cited strengthens that claim. You have yet to provide RS that disputes that claim. I can continue providing RS to strengthen my claim, as every poll after that point never showed Trump return to levels at/near/below his pre-indictment level, and showed most fluctuation up or down within margin of error. Exit polling also showed he won the PV, still maintaining his increased %, and these polls are already citied elsewhere on the "main" page so I know you aren't pretending those aren't also there. As a bonus, , yet another collection of polling data, this time during Trump v Harris timeline, still showing his polling numbers at approx the same as they were from every other poll post-indictment. But I am sure you will once again have some sort of issue with this, and once again your issue will be to insist it is all OR, and again you will provide not a hint of a RS to disprove the assertion.
::::::So here is my final answer: This is about as basic as it gets, telling the reader a factual summary of what can be verified from multiple RS, specifically within the context of the section within the article page it is being stated in. The assertion is a fact, it is verified by multiple RS confirming the same data result to be true, it is presented within the context of the section topic, and you have provided no substantive counterargument to actually address any of this and instead choose to argue past the point. That is your decision and right to do so. Mine is to choose to stop engaging past the slightest hope of productive, constructive conversation. I leave the rest to the gods of chaos, i.e. other Wiki users. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Bluntly, in order to verify that requires an education level that rises above our Original Research threshold for sky-is-blue. Which is deliberately set low to cater for, well, less-well educated English speakers from countries with substandard education systems. It may be entirely correct, but unless there is a source that explicitly states that, you cant state it as fact. ] (]) 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::And there's another reason the OR rule is what it is. If Assertion X hasn't been stated by reliable secondary sources, then -- whether it's true or not -- it's questionable that it's something worth telling our readers. ]] 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{sources-talk}}


== Potential SYNTH violation on "video games considered the best" list article ==
Are research papers from academic sites allowed to be used such as these?


The article on ] is set up to determine "games considered the best" by "The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms, and genres)". After a lengthy discussion on the talk page, I'm still convinced it fails ], specifically "{{gt|Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources}}" and ] ("{{gt|"Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.}}") While I think an article on acclaimed media to be interesting and valid, I feel that the approach taken applies arbitrary criteria ("had to appear on six lists") that is not widespread among any video game academia, criticism, or even fans to make to capture the subject on hand. Thoughts? ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* (Note: This one seems to be a copy of part of a text on pdf.)
* - Louis Antony


:There's certainly an argument that it's combining different claims in a way that's ] to create a "definitive" list. There's also an argument that all of those sources support "greatest" as required by ] and we're just requiring it to be heavily supported and represent the consensus among sources as required by ]. Either way, this has repeatedly been brought up and settled. This isn't the answer you want to hear, but at a certain point ] that most of the community feels the latter argument is stronger. If you're looking to fight OR, there are plenty of easier targets to sink your teeth into. ] (]) 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, are PDF files allowed to be used for quoting sources?
::I have no argument that this is a way to get some information to define "greatness". The issue is only applying a self-imposed rule that states "The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists" which does not seem congruent with ]'s "{{gt|Avoid original or arbitrary criteria}} that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.". The bigger issue is I do not understand how including only six items is acceptable with the "avoid original or arbitrary criteria". So I appreciate you chiming in {{ping|Thebiguglyalien}}, but your response does not address the problem I'm trying to bring up. ] (]) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Are you interpreting the phrase "a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" to mean "reliable sources have to have described/written about standards for evaluating whether something belongs on a particular list". If so, in this case, that would require RSes to have written about why, how, or that people use being on six separate "all time best" lists to determine whether a video game is considered to belong on a "considered the best" list. I'm spelling this out because I'm not 100% sure myself how to interpret what "plainly verifiable in reliable sources" means as applied to this situation -- or what you think it means or how you are interpreting it.] (]) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm totally aware I may be misinterpreting it. The content in the sources is definitely the items listed. But, there is no standard in any source to apply that we be a numeric ranking and I'm not sure that applying a rule that only selects a small amount of items is not applying "arbitrary criteria" as it makes us pick and choose what from the sources is valid and what is not. I apologize if any of this comes off as antagonistic, but I'm trying to clarify this {{ping|Novellasyes}}. If I'm misinterpreting, I think I might understand by an example of how this does not apply. ] (]) 06:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: I don't fully understand exactly what the phrase "a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" means and that's why I asked, and tried to express one possible interpretation of it. I wasn't trying to suggest that you don't understand it. ] (]) 13:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Fair. Sorry misunderstood. Hopefully some others can chime in. ] (]) 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}}
My understanding of this list's approach is basically as follows: A game is theoretically eligible for inclusion on Misplaced Pages's list if a reliable source lists it as among the best or greatest games of all time. However, there are two drawbacks to including every game that has appeared even once on such a list: (1) it may be ] to describe a game as "considered the best" if only one source from a large pool of options does so, and (2) the Misplaced Pages list would rapidly balloon to an impractical ] if so many games were included. Thus, it seems like sensible practice to forestall those drawbacks by establishing a higher threshold than "appears at least once". To the best of my knowledge, reliable sources don't do "meta-analysis" of best-games lists that we could use to source "games must appear on X number of lists"—but we still need to choose ''some'' number to be the boundary, and so six seems as good as any. (As to whether it's SYNTH to set a higher threshold in the first place, I would say not. When it comes to the reception of media, there's plenty of precedent that it's acceptable to attribute an opinion to critics in the aggregate if references are supplied to show that several critics have expressed that view, and this list's threshold seems to extend from that same practice.) ] (] • ]) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:Thank you for your response {{ping|ModernDayTrilobite}}. Would it not be more appropriate to follow ] (specifically {{gt|Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically.}} to cover the latter issue? While I understand your point of view on six, more lists like this will be published, and I feel like adjusting the number to keep a list to be a balanced scale still becomes "iffy" at least per SYNTH rules, but if we separated the list out. I see you linked to some specific rules, but if you could quote which ones you are referring to, it would help me understand where you are coming from a bit more. ] (]) 17:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 08:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
::How would this not just recreate the issue on a greater number of pages? If we split the list into subpages, WP:DUE would still apply, and would still likely create situations where, to determine what is due weight, editors require a game to be featured by "multiple" sources. Let's say multiple is taken to mean three--you've recreated the exact same arbitrary standard, according to you, just at a different place. I don't quite understand your sentence {{tqq|While I understand your point of view on six, more lists like this will be published, and I feel like adjusting the number to keep a list to be a balanced scale still becomes "iffy" at least per SYNTH rules, but if we separated the list out.}} Were you missing a final clause after "but if we separated the list out"? But yes, by and large, I think you need to take this six sources requirement as a requirement per DUE, not a violation of SYNTH. ] ''(]·])'' 18:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I mean, its a rule we are supposed to follow regardless of how it effects another rule for one. Second, to address ], i'd propose simply listing numerically the amount of lists found. This would give a reader a clearer point of view of how the game stands within publications. Currently, the list also features excessive data such game genre, publishers and "original system" which do not appear to be some sources regardless. ] (]) 18:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I guess the other editors involved don't believe it violates a rule then. Or at minimum, we are trusting our readers to understand that we aren't saying "only when a game is called 'the best' by six separate publications does it then become Objectively True that the game is the best of all time". Your second point does not actually solve the issue of whether or not we include a game ''at all'' if, say, it has only been called "the best" by a single publication. I would argue that given the amount of sourcing we have on this issue, it is a clear violation of DUE weight to include, say, '']'' equal on a list to ''Ocarina of Time'' just because it was put on by Gamespot. Is that inclusion verifiable? Yes. Does that inclusion accurately represent the breadth of sourcing and discussion about either ''California Games'' itself or the general list of games considered the greatest ever? Clearly no. (Of course, according to the ''CG'' article it made it onto another list in 1996, but that opens up another can of worms about DUE--how should we value inclusion on a single list in 1996? Does that accurately represent the breadth of sourcing and discussion about ''California Games's'' legacy or the modern understanding of games considered the greatest ever? Again, I'd argue clearly no.) Based on these points about DUE, it seems that you ''have'' to increase the standard for sourcing, and that overwhelmingly outweighs some soft SYNTH concerns. ] ''(]·])'' 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes sorry, I'm not saying any of my ideas are necessarily the way to go, I'm just spit balling. Trying to define greatness from appearing on an amount of lists is also problematic for the reasons you stated {{ping|Alyo}}. While I also have faith that readers can read the instructions, this would read like an article called List of horses then suddenly says within the lead its only a list of war horses because of list of horses would be too long or we couldn't apply weight for some breeds of horses over others.
:::::That said, with horses, there are scientific standards you can apply, which is why the horse list is
:::::The issue with our list here as you said, it multifold. Perhaps the no original research board is the wrong place to discuss this, The problem with making the lists rules more "strict" for weight can be expanded on similarly as does for film. They note that best-of lists, with various rules applied to them "negate the function of serious film reviewing and criticism" and that a best of poll describes nothing more than "the best American commercial narrative films viewed by 20 critics who seem primarily familiar with American commercial narrative films." This can be seen on the lists that applied various limiting rules.
:::::''The Age'' says their list is based on " while GameSpot in 2000 included such games () The claim of it coming from the editorial staff is also faulty, as says their list is solicited opinions from game developers and "selected expert gamers". IGN said . Applying all of these as a balanced choice is misleading to audience when we just say "critics listed these as great" when we are not open that some games just are not applicable on terms that lists are static, and obviously become outdated, or even a contemporary one can't see the future.
:::::With the above suggestion, while I see that it might be a good idea to make a stricter list to follow weight, I can't imagine anything that would make most people say that works because by definition, all the lists are talking about different things. Whether they apply unique rules, or are instantly dated to the static nature of magazines or years of lists. I'm not sure anything would satisfy it. ] (]) 23:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hmm, I think your horse example is a little flawed, because there's no bait-and-switch happening with the substance of this article. The video games on the list aren't called "the greatest" because they've reached an abstract standard on wikipedia. They're called "the greatest" because ''a source'' called them the greatest. This is exactly what the title of the article promises--we aren't presenting ''different'' content from what the title suggests, only a pared down version of the universe of possible options. The proper analogy is to ], which contains a list of leading Thoroughbred racehorses, but not ''all'' leading Thoroughbred racehorses. The undefeated horses section: "]" The ] arbitrarily stops around 60. The ] section says "The horses who were defeated but had ten or more consecutive race wins include..." ] only includes those above 10, probably just because humans are biased towards powers of ten. Every section in that article has a cut off point, and that cut off point was made by editors, not sources. No source said "only horses with 60 wins get to be considered a leading Thoroughbred", and so editors have substituted their best judgement while basing the substance of the article on the general idea that "most wins" is a valid metric for determining a "leading" racehorse. I see the same thing happening here: the topic is notable, individual entries exist under the topic, and the entries are suitably sourced. Editors just need to determine a cut off point--that isn't SYNTH. Last point: {{tqq|Applying all of these as a balanced choice is misleading to audience...}} may be true about the list, but ''the list is verifiable'', and our requirement is ]. If we tried to use our judgment to counter balance, as you point out yourself, that creates far more SYNTH/OR than we started with. The list may not ever be perfect, but the topic is notable and a consensus has been established that this is the way to cover it. ] ''(]·])'' 02:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You see, the Horse thing is a lot more "measurable". Its a sport, you get wins that are very basic measurable metric. I don't know about this subject, but its possible that its common to acknowledge ones that get a certain amount of wins in a season. Regardless, "wins" make more sense to count than something like best.
:::::::Describing a creative work like a video game is not so simple. As you'll notice in those lists as well, they don't have a list of horses "voted the best" is not something a serious critic measures. For example, these quotes apply to film and music, but I feel like they are similar creative mediums we can compare. For example, this (about film to clarify) states best of lists "{{gt|negate the function of serious film reviewing and criticism}}" and that these lists "{{gt|"ignore major bodies of work which the critics are either unfamiliar with or are not interested in."}} While this interview with a few critics on ''NPR'' states lists are interesting to compare, they echo the statement about them having no real "weight" in artistic merit. They state that "when you're ranking things, that kind of adds another layer of, like, taking away from the art itself and trying to assign a specific meaning to this art that is hard to codify because it's art." or "We're often more kind of approaching these things anecdotally, talking about the stuff that really, really matters to us instead of kind of trying to collect a consensus around ranking the best." and "{{gt|how do you measure something that may be aesthetically grandiose in some ways versus something that's quieter and, like, try to put those up against each other? It's like - it's really hard, and it doesn't really make sense.}}" Gaming journalists echo the level of seriousness we should be taking to imply "best" for "best of lists". Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gaming Trends echoes this, stating "" and "{{gt|Nowadays “top X” articles on the internet tend to be seen as clickbait, hastily assembled list determined by some quick democratic polling of staff. the lists tend to be rather insular, usually based on whatever publication or forum assembled them}}" Similarly, HG101 also states their list starts with staffs favourites, and was built from there. The very fact we ignore the criticism on the validity of these lists to be simply taking that "they are the best" its impractical to use them as a form of measurement in terms of quality.
:::::::So as you said Verifiabilty, not truth, True but we also have ] which states "{{gt|Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.}}" In this case, yes, these games do appear on "best of" lists, no question. But from the above quotations, is combining them, or even using them explicitly a serious and good way to calculate "best"?
:::::::While I think its interesting to see lists on a unique topic, like, ''Super Mario 64'' "ahh, so the writers of the American company ] and the Japanese critics in ] or British magazine ''Empire'' all voted this game" but from the writing above, it seems to be implying that "if you take the list at face value, you are missing the point" as its a poor way to measure quality in terms of reach of what video games will reach different editors (''IGN'' will write more about popular video games (HG101 writer saying {{gt|"Rock Paper Shotgun, for example, has top 25/50 lists for many genres, but focuses only on games released on the PC. So reading about “best horror” games seems really strange when you’re omitting huge swathes of them, especially Japanese developed games. Similarly, computer RPGs and Japanese RPGs have such different fanbases that they’re almost entirely different genres, so there’s rarely any crossover on “best RPG” lists. IGN and other mainstream sites tend to focus on newer releases at the expense of gaming’s history."}} Not to mention, IGN has published 7 best of lists, and they are all currently used in the article. I think from the above, we can't make serious gamut for measuring or gauging some canon or critical consensus.
:::::::Oh god I wrote an essay, I apologize {{ping|Alyo}}, but I think we're both making good points here and getting somewhere. ] (]) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Haha no worries at all, it's an interesting topic. I don't have much more to add, because as I flagged above, I think your interpretation here isn't widely held and hypothetical discussions can only go so far without actionable steps. The only place I really disagree with you is in the framing of your sentence, {{tqq|But from the above quotations, is combining them, or even using them explicitly a serious and good way to calculate "best"?}} I don't think that we are calculating "best" by combining sources. I think we are ''summarizing'' the topic of "best games" by listing games that sources have explicitly called "the best". The combination of sources doesn't change the verifiability of sources making that claim. I can completely agree with broad critiques of "best of" lists as they appear in reliable sources, but the end result for our purposes is a valid source that calls something "the best". That's the WP:Verifiability, not truth point--saying "X is a GOAT game" is verifiable, even if you agree with critiques that make that statement not objectively "true". You say {{tqq|The very fact we ignore the criticism on the validity of these lists ... its impractical to use them as a form of measurement in terms of quality}}, but that issue is already presumed/accepted under WP's groundrules. Again, WP:Verifiability, not truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Don't think of this article topic as "Games that objectively ''are'' the best of all time". Imagine that the article is actually titled "Games that a certain subset of sources have subjectively described as the best of all time, using different metrics and criteria and with different backgrounds and expertise". Under WP's rules, that's what the article should be including, it's just a lot less pithy. ] ''(]·])'' 05:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Would ] come into play? I feel like "People who read Misplaced Pages have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." Because I think if we can state information from the sources below within the context of the list, it might help clarify issues. As the lists often discuss their own issues of "Best of" lists, I think this would ease any tensions editors or readers might have with the relatively flat opening. ] (]) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::}}
Your question about whether to adjust the lede section of the article is a good question to take to the article's talk page. For what it's worth, the lede in my view does a poor job explaining what a reader is going to find in the list itself.] (]) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:Second^. I'm not sure that I would integrate commentary into the list itself, but the lead could certainly be expanded. ] ''(]·])'' 17:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:The format of a source does not usually affect its reliability. Thus, a PDF file ''might'' be reliable or not, depending on whether the website that hosts it, it's author, etc is reliable.
::No, definitely not into the list itself. Just in the lead or some subsection if necessary. ] (]) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:As for the two sources you are asking about: No, we can not call them reliable... in the case of we have an excerpt from a larger text, with no indication of who wrote it or whether it has been reviewed. The fact that it is hosted on the columbia.edu server does not mean that it is authoritive, simply that someone at Columbia saved it onto the server.
:As for , it seems to be a personal webpage or Self-published source (hosted on tripod.com). While we dp know the author (Louis Antony), we don't know if this paper has been reviewed or how it was recieved. At best, it ''might'' be acceptable for a statement of Mr. Antony's opinion, if (and this is a big if) he is considered a noted expert in his field of study (ie someone who's opinion is noteworthy). ] (]) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


== Southern Operations Room ==
::Thanks. ] (]) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The ] uses as a flag the logo of a game cancelled 11 years ago ]
There are sources that depict the logo of this game although the only ] is Electronic Arts (the game' editor) Youtube page as they've shutdown eveyrthing else related to the cancelled game from their official website long ago. However because there is no reliable source that has stated the logo origin - there is not many people remembering about this 11 years old cancelled game - i obviously got a ] as this is an unpublished fact. Any way to still get this bit of trivia to the page? I doubt SOR founders would be open for an online interview or a newspaper to write an article on it ] (]) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{smalldiv|1=(moved from talk) <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 11:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Hello, I looked at the YouTube video you originally posted, and I agree that the logos are extremely similar, and that your interpretation might be correct. However, as you have pointed out, it is going to be difficult to find at least one ] to verify it. Inclusion of trivia is ] in articles, but in general it needs to be highly relevant to the subject. In this case, without a secondary (or even primary) source, we are not yet at a point where we can discuss inclusion. Hope that helps! '']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>'' 15:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Use of rabbinic law literature in article on a Jewish ritual ==
== Request to help with a content dispute ==
Hello, I'm having a bit of a conflict with another user over some content that, to me, is clearly a violation of Wiki's policy towards OR - specifically ] of info. The article is ] and the specific content is that she opened and closed the first segment of the upcoming Victoria Secret Fashion Show, being the first model to ever do so. She has no published sources, only photo galleries as citations and a collection of Youtube videos on the talk page that everyone is supposed to watch in order to put all of it together to see that the user is right. I've told the user to at least wait some time for the show to be held so a reliable source can publish something about it, but the user refuses and openly plans to revert anything to the contrary.


I'm doing a GA review of the article on ], a Jewish ritual that has relatively little coverage in secondary journalistic or academic sources.
Here is the specific section in the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Adriana_Lima#Adriana_opening_and_closeing_segment_first_ever_angel_to_do_so.


The article had relied largely on '''rabbinic law sources''', including standard codes of religious law. These are primary sources. Nonetheless, much of the usage might meet ], such as: reputably published, used for statements of fact, not interpreting the facts, not the basis for the entire article. Many of these sources are in Hebrew and not available in translation afaik.
Could someone drop by and offer their opinion? Thanks! ] (]) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


As a significant improvement, the article now makes extensive use of an article in the '''] (ET)''' -- about 25 citations. While the ET assumes an Orthodox Jewish standpoint, it is a highly regarded secondary source and aims to present a variety of (Orthodox) views. The ET is also in Hebrew (afaik there's an English translation but I don't have access).
== Using websites to quote sources. ==


Questions:
Hi,
# Are there any WP:RS objections to using '''Encyclopedia Talmudit''' extensively in this article? (There are sufficient other sources for notability, etc.)
# Is it acceptable to use '''rabbinic law sources''', as long as the WP:PRIMARY conditions (above) are fulfilled?
# Is it acceptable to use '''multiple citations''' for specific sentences, so the reader can see both the ET article as well as the specific rabbinic sources that the ET mentions? (I think this will be helpful to many readers.)


Here's a question that's not about WP:RS, but related: For the rabbinic law sources, may Misplaced Pages citations rely on the standard format? Even in many academic texts, the citations do not mention the specific publisher or (re-)publication date of rabbinic sources.
Just would like to know if the following news and informational websites are permissible according to Misplaced Pages requirements to be used to quote sources for a biography:
Thanks for your consideration and responsiveness. ] (]) 20:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:There is somewhere an essay or policy called WP:RELIGIOUSTEXT. I don't remember actually what it's called. (That's a redlink). But I'd say ET looks reliable and good to use, as long as you keep it in mind that it's an Orthodox source so it shouldn't be used to write about secular topics or, may be biased when it comes to Orthodox views of secularism or other opinions that might be stated as fact from an Orthodox POV. But bottom line should be reliable for facts that aren't controversial or political, and for analysis that goes beyond that of a primary source as long as caution is used for potential biases. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*
::Thanks. So far I've found: ]. Not finding an essay or policy (though I vaguely remember one from long ago). Sounds like you answered my Q1 with support for ET use, which means the page can avoid this template. Any thoughts about q #3? ] (]) 21:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*
:::I agree that ]ing or adding multiple cites to support the analysis with the primary source is a good idea. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*
::], perhaps? Or ]? ] (]) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*
:::Thanks for those links, @], but these rabbinic law sources are not scripture, so thankfully they've much less interpretive range and they're much easier to paraphrase factually. At this point, most key points based on such primary sources are backed up by ''Encyclopedia Talmudit''. It's true the article depends heavily on Hebrew sources, but that's allowable. I will do a spot check, for GA review, and there are many other Hebrew-reading editors who can correct mistakes, as with any WP article. // Belated @] ping. ] (]) 14:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*
*
*


== Edits to “Game Science” ==
] (]) 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


Discussion regarding ] has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==


== Jackal (character) ==
This article contains a section on timelines in the movie that was written by a wikipedian, who then had the section approved by the writers of the movie by asking on the forum of the writer's website. It's currently undergoing GA review, and I have put it on hold seeking a second opinion on this section. Does this still count as original research? ] (]) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


The article ] seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the {{oldid2|1263622722|most recent edit as I'm writing this}}, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. {{oldid2|1263534172|An edit}} I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character {{oldid2|1263602067|was reverted}} by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. ] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely questionable. The timeline was indeed Original Research on the part of a Wikipedian, but the subsequent comments on that research by the writer gives it a post-facto acceptance. That said, I am not at all happy with sourcing questionable material in a GA candidate to a forum. Forums are generally not considered reliable sources. ] (]) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


: There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: ]. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be ] to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the ] could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is ]. My two cents. ] (]) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Headline map at ] ==
:It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. ] (]) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== SYNTH-edits at Team Seas ==
The longstanding and referenced "anachronous" map at ] is repeatedly being changed by ] to a map that he has uploaded in the last few days, for which zero references have been provided. Drawing maps of the Spanish Empire presents a problem in that Spain claimed far more than it actually ruled or settled, so you'll find slightly different maps depending on the author/source. However, the referenced version , which has been on the article for over a year, is at least verifiable - it represents the "lowest common denominator", if you will, of maps that you will find in reliable sources. EuroHistoryTeacher's version is totally unreferenced.


There's an ongoing thread ] on a contested edit to the article. The in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that {{tq|This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing).}} There is clear consensus of a ] violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are ] any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --] (]) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I have tried explaining the policies of ] and ] to him but to no avail, he just continues to revert the map. I would appreciate some assistance/advice here. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


:See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Maps seem to be an issue recently (another map was recently debated at RS and RSN). There are two ways to look at a map... 1) If it is being used as a ''source'' for information, then the map needs to be verifiable and come from a reliable source. 2) If it is being used as an illustration it can be classified as an image, and we allow for ]. The concept is that images (which includes maps) are mearly a pictorial representations information discussed in the text, and the text should already ''be'' sourced. ] (]) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Clearly SYNTH; also ] by this point. I've left ], which I hope will help resolve the situation. ] (]) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) {{nacc}}
:::When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not ] on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ] (]) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:56, 30 December 2024

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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 Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcuts
    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 Misplaced Pages.
    • 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:

    Archiving icon
    Archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52


    This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Original research for claim regarding polling for Donald Trump's legal cases on the 2024 United States election page

    The following sentence in dispute contains original research not supported by the sources at hand:

    Polling throughout the election cycle showed that after his indictments began Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle, and after his conviction in New York, polling among republicans showed that the conviction made 34% of them "more likely" to vote for Trump.

    The first half of the sentence was reverted by myself, as the two sources for the claim did not state that "Polling throughout the election cycle" showed that after his indictments "Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle". The sources cannot make this claim, as they were both published in 2023, over 1 year before the end of the election cycle in 2024. My removal of this was reverted by TheRazgriz, who claimed there was no original research. BootsED (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    Being tactful in my reply here to add the following:
    In the referenced text, there are three references, two contemporary citations to the polling "bump" post-indictment in Nov 2023, and one which notes polling post-conviction in June 2024, more than half a year later, and elsewhere in the page is already reference to exit polling support almost a full year from initial reference (in addition to the obligatory links to the main 24 POTUS election page with more focused data/info).
    My rebuttal is that it is OR to make authoritative statements with no RS to validate the substance or merit of the statement, but it is not OR to cite RS sources containing and explaining datasets and make a statement of fact based on the data cited. If needed, further citations can easily be found to continue to validate the claim, for example HERE which show any variation from Nov 23-Jun 24 as within margin of error, but my approach on WP is that there is very rarely a valid reason to cite more than 1 or 2 sources to validate a claim that is not a serious point of contention. That is my $0.02(USD). More than happy to participate more if needed or requested. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    First, the third source does not make the claim that because of Trump’s indictments, his polling numbers remained up throughout the election cycle because of the indictments. It is also published in June of 2024, still before the end of the election cycle.
    The new source you provided in your comment above was not in the sentence at hand, and does not even say that Trump's indictments resulted in a polling bump. It instead reports on people's opinions on the indictments, not on Trump’s overall poll numbers. The poll is based on the question, not his overall polling numbers. It is also a primary source rather than a secondary source, so using that source to make broader claims is synthesis. It is also published in June, so it still wouldn't satisfy your claim that his poll numbers went up throughout the election cycle because of his indictments. BootsED (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with BootED that some OR is involved in the sentence, "Polling throughout the election cycle showed that after his indictments began Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle." A couple of factors to notice: (1) the indictments didn't all happen at once; if it is really true that his poll number experienced an increase after "his indictments began" you'd have to go back and pick up the first indictment and see what happened to his poll numbers starting then; this, however, would then make a complicated claim to draw all the way through to November 2024 since at that time he was still seeking the Republican nomination and polls were about his standing versus other Republicans; (2) his polling numbers vacillated during the general election season and experienced a dip after the Harris nomination; (3) to the extent that some Republicans looked on him more favorably because of the indictments (this is born out in some polls), I don't see an RS that supports that idea that his relatively robust poll numbers which Harris was only briefly able to interrupt was because of the indictments. It would be good to not confuse correlation with causation and not to imply it unless RSes do; but even the correlation seems like OR. There probably are some valuable or interesting sentences that COULD be included about the impact of his indictments but the way it is said now rolls way too much up into one OR overarching claim. Novellasyes (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    I feel it is important to not misconstrue what the article as written actually says. The wording is:
    "Polling throughout the election cycle showed that after his indictments began Trumps poll numbers saw an immediate rise which would remain throughout the rest of the election cycle."
    What is being communicated to the reader? Trump had X% polling before his first indictment, just after the first indictment those numbers saw an immediate Y% increase to Z%, and that Y% gain remained for the rest of the cycle. It is not asserting that his numbers remained at Z% for the rest of the cycle, just that the Y% increase remained, i.e. he never saw X% after that point.
    Here is an equal but opposite question: Did Trumps polling in the 2024 election cycle post-indictment 1 ever get at/near/below his polling pre-indictment 1? The answer is plainly no, based on all available data, at every stage of the election.
    But to the point of OR, this really feels like a mistake seen time and again, summed up as "If a RS can not be quoted as saying a specific thing, then it is OR to say that thing at all in WikiVoice." WV is not a quotation method, it is used to give a summary based on RS. It is not OR to summarize the data and RS. RS verify the assertion (again, the Y%, not the Z%), and further RS citations can and are easily obtained which reinforce this. If the issue is "Needs more/better citations", that is achieved within a half hour, but we must keep in mind WP:OVERKILL and be reasonable about it. How many RS are needed to reasonably validate the claim? Do we need a poll from each month of the entire cycle? Every quarter? TheRazgriz (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    You don't need a poll from every month, you need one reliable secondary source published after the election that directly makes the claims you admit you made based on your own interpretation of data. BootsED (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, it is bluntly false to claim SYNTH to the other citation. That was such a wild assertion to make. Its an Emerson College poll. What in the world is primary about this? Explain the leap to asserting it is SYNTH here. TheRazgriz (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    The polling data universally verifies this summary. It shows Trump at X% pre-Indictment 1, it shows a significant Y% increase post-indictment 1 to Z% ratings, and confirms that at no point did the Y% "go away" over time, instead remaining for the rest of the cycle, proven by the fact that he never returned to X% levels afterward. If the summary/assertion had no data to confirm, and was simply ripping bits and pieces of RS to cobble together the assertion with no actual underlying foundation of RS/proof for the assertion itself, that would be SYNTH. That is not the case here. The case here is that RS data verifies the assertion, Trump never saw his numbers go back down to where they had previously been. That is a fact, clearly apparent by the data itself. It is not OR to state numbers went up and cite the data, it is also not OR to state they did not return to previous levels and cite the data.
    What concerns me more is the combined assertion you've made that using Emerson College polls as a citation is somehow "primary source" to this. How? I sincerely am curious how you arrive at that conclusion. Everything is primary to something, but how this poll is primary to this discussion is inconceivable to me. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    The issue is not with the pollster. Primary versus secondary sources is best described by WP:SECONDARY. The primary source you pointed to does not make the claim you say it does. BootsED (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    The claim is one of data. "Data shows X". Every source I have provided is in support of that claim, and does indeed strengthen that claim.
    SYNTH would be:
    Source 1- "Immigrants are pouring across Southern border in record numbers."
    Source 2- "Record numbers of illegal drugs flowing across Southern border."
    WIkiVoice summary- "Immigrants are bringing record numbers of illegal drugs across the Southern border."
    That is SYNTH.
    Again, the WV assertion here is not that. It is "X% increased by Y% to Z%, and the Y% remained". Every source cited strengthens that claim. You have yet to provide RS that disputes that claim. I can continue providing RS to strengthen my claim, as every poll after that point never showed Trump return to levels at/near/below his pre-indictment level, and showed most fluctuation up or down within margin of error. Exit polling also showed he won the PV, still maintaining his increased %, and these polls are already citied elsewhere on the "main" page so I know you aren't pretending those aren't also there. As a bonus, HERE, yet another collection of polling data, this time during Trump v Harris timeline, still showing his polling numbers at approx the same as they were from every other poll post-indictment. But I am sure you will once again have some sort of issue with this, and once again your issue will be to insist it is all OR, and again you will provide not a hint of a RS to disprove the assertion.
    So here is my final answer: This is about as basic as it gets, telling the reader a factual summary of what can be verified from multiple RS, specifically within the context of the section within the article page it is being stated in. The assertion is a fact, it is verified by multiple RS confirming the same data result to be true, it is presented within the context of the section topic, and you have provided no substantive counterargument to actually address any of this and instead choose to argue past the point. That is your decision and right to do so. Mine is to choose to stop engaging past the slightest hope of productive, constructive conversation. I leave the rest to the gods of chaos, i.e. other Wiki users. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bluntly, in order to verify that requires an education level that rises above our Original Research threshold for sky-is-blue. Which is deliberately set low to cater for, well, less-well educated English speakers from countries with substandard education systems. It may be entirely correct, but unless there is a source that explicitly states that, you cant state it as fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    And there's another reason the OR rule is what it is. If Assertion X hasn't been stated by reliable secondary sources, then -- whether it's true or not -- it's questionable that it's something worth telling our readers. EEng 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sources

    1. "Why Trump's poll lead went up after criminal indictments". BBC. 2023-07-31. Archived from the original on November 23, 2024. Retrieved 2024-11-24.
    2. Ordoñez, Franco. "Raising money and poll numbers, Donald Trump stays 'Teflon Don' amid indictments". NPR.org. Archived from the original on November 29, 2024. Retrieved November 24, 2024.
    3. "What the first polls after Trump's conviction show — and don't show". NBC News. 2024-06-03. Retrieved 2024-11-24. In fact, in the same poll, 55% of Republican voters said the verdict didn't make a difference to their vote, and 34% said it made them more likely to vote for Trump.

    Potential SYNTH violation on "video games considered the best" list article

    The article on List of video games considered the best is set up to determine "games considered the best" by "The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms, and genres)". After a lengthy discussion on the talk page, I'm still convinced it fails WP:SYNTH, specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and WP:LISTCRITERIA (""Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.") While I think an article on acclaimed media to be interesting and valid, I feel that the approach taken applies arbitrary criteria ("had to appear on six lists") that is not widespread among any video game academia, criticism, or even fans to make to capture the subject on hand. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    There's certainly an argument that it's combining different claims in a way that's WP:SYNTH to create a "definitive" list. There's also an argument that all of those sources support "greatest" as required by WP:V and we're just requiring it to be heavily supported and represent the consensus among sources as required by WP:NPOV. Either way, this has repeatedly been brought up and settled. This isn't the answer you want to hear, but at a certain point we have to accept that most of the community feels the latter argument is stronger. If you're looking to fight OR, there are plenty of easier targets to sink your teeth into. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no argument that this is a way to get some information to define "greatness". The issue is only applying a self-imposed rule that states "The games listed here are included on at least six separate "best/greatest of all time" lists" which does not seem congruent with WP:LISTCRITERIA's "Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.". The bigger issue is I do not understand how including only six items is acceptable with the "avoid original or arbitrary criteria". So I appreciate you chiming in @Thebiguglyalien:, but your response does not address the problem I'm trying to bring up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are you interpreting the phrase "a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" to mean "reliable sources have to have described/written about standards for evaluating whether something belongs on a particular list". If so, in this case, that would require RSes to have written about why, how, or that people use being on six separate "all time best" lists to determine whether a video game is considered to belong on a "considered the best" list. I'm spelling this out because I'm not 100% sure myself how to interpret what "plainly verifiable in reliable sources" means as applied to this situation -- or what you think it means or how you are interpreting it.Novellasyes (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm totally aware I may be misinterpreting it. The content in the sources is definitely the items listed. But, there is no standard in any source to apply that we be a numeric ranking and I'm not sure that applying a rule that only selects a small amount of items is not applying "arbitrary criteria" as it makes us pick and choose what from the sources is valid and what is not. I apologize if any of this comes off as antagonistic, but I'm trying to clarify this @Novellasyes:. If I'm misinterpreting, I think I might understand by an example of how this does not apply. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't fully understand exactly what the phrase "a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" means and that's why I asked, and tried to express one possible interpretation of it. I wasn't trying to suggest that you don't understand it. Novellasyes (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fair. Sorry misunderstood. Hopefully some others can chime in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    My understanding of this list's approach is basically as follows: A game is theoretically eligible for inclusion on Misplaced Pages's list if a reliable source lists it as among the best or greatest games of all time. However, there are two drawbacks to including every game that has appeared even once on such a list: (1) it may be WP:UNDUE to describe a game as "considered the best" if only one source from a large pool of options does so, and (2) the Misplaced Pages list would rapidly balloon to an impractical WP:SIZE if so many games were included. Thus, it seems like sensible practice to forestall those drawbacks by establishing a higher threshold than "appears at least once". To the best of my knowledge, reliable sources don't do "meta-analysis" of best-games lists that we could use to source "games must appear on X number of lists"—but we still need to choose some number to be the boundary, and so six seems as good as any. (As to whether it's SYNTH to set a higher threshold in the first place, I would say not. When it comes to the reception of media, there's plenty of precedent that it's acceptable to attribute an opinion to critics in the aggregate if references are supplied to show that several critics have expressed that view, and this list's threshold seems to extend from that same practice.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for your response @ModernDayTrilobite:. Would it not be more appropriate to follow WP:SPINOUT (specifically Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. to cover the latter issue? While I understand your point of view on six, more lists like this will be published, and I feel like adjusting the number to keep a list to be a balanced scale still becomes "iffy" at least per SYNTH rules, but if we separated the list out. I see you linked to some specific rules, but if you could quote which ones you are referring to, it would help me understand where you are coming from a bit more. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    How would this not just recreate the issue on a greater number of pages? If we split the list into subpages, WP:DUE would still apply, and would still likely create situations where, to determine what is due weight, editors require a game to be featured by "multiple" sources. Let's say multiple is taken to mean three--you've recreated the exact same arbitrary standard, according to you, just at a different place. I don't quite understand your sentence While I understand your point of view on six, more lists like this will be published, and I feel like adjusting the number to keep a list to be a balanced scale still becomes "iffy" at least per SYNTH rules, but if we separated the list out. Were you missing a final clause after "but if we separated the list out"? But yes, by and large, I think you need to take this six sources requirement as a requirement per DUE, not a violation of SYNTH. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, its a rule we are supposed to follow regardless of how it effects another rule for one. Second, to address WP:WEIGHT, i'd propose simply listing numerically the amount of lists found. This would give a reader a clearer point of view of how the game stands within publications. Currently, the list also features excessive data such game genre, publishers and "original system" which do not appear to be some sources regardless. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I guess the other editors involved don't believe it violates a rule then. Or at minimum, we are trusting our readers to understand that we aren't saying "only when a game is called 'the best' by six separate publications does it then become Objectively True that the game is the best of all time". Your second point does not actually solve the issue of whether or not we include a game at all if, say, it has only been called "the best" by a single publication. I would argue that given the amount of sourcing we have on this issue, it is a clear violation of DUE weight to include, say, California Games equal on a list to Ocarina of Time just because it was put on a single list by Gamespot. Is that inclusion verifiable? Yes. Does that inclusion accurately represent the breadth of sourcing and discussion about either California Games itself or the general list of games considered the greatest ever? Clearly no. (Of course, according to the CG article it made it onto another list in 1996, but that opens up another can of worms about DUE--how should we value inclusion on a single list in 1996? Does that accurately represent the breadth of sourcing and discussion about California Games's legacy or the modern understanding of games considered the greatest ever? Again, I'd argue clearly no.) Based on these points about DUE, it seems that you have to increase the standard for sourcing, and that overwhelmingly outweighs some soft SYNTH concerns. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes sorry, I'm not saying any of my ideas are necessarily the way to go, I'm just spit balling. Trying to define greatness from appearing on an amount of lists is also problematic for the reasons you stated @Alyo:. While I also have faith that readers can read the instructions, this would read like an article called List of horses then suddenly says within the lead its only a list of war horses because of list of horses would be too long or we couldn't apply weight for some breeds of horses over others.
    That said, with horses, there are scientific standards you can apply, which is why the horse list is
    The issue with our list here as you said, it multifold. Perhaps the no original research board is the wrong place to discuss this, The problem with making the lists rules more "strict" for weight can be expanded on similarly as this article does for film. They note that best-of lists, with various rules applied to them "negate the function of serious film reviewing and criticism" and that a best of poll describes nothing more than "the best American commercial narrative films viewed by 20 critics who seem primarily familiar with American commercial narrative films." This can be seen on the lists that applied various limiting rules.
    The Age says their list is based on "restrictions such as "games have been judged on their entertainment value today rather than their impact when released." while GameSpot in 2000 included such games ("There were no restrictions on gaming genre, platform or age. Any game that appeared on a home gaming platform before January 1st 2000 was deemed eligible.") The claim of it coming from the editorial staff is also faulty, as GameSpy says their list is solicited opinions from game developers and "selected expert gamers". IGN said they did not want Mario and Zelda to show up too many times in their list. Applying all of these as a balanced choice is misleading to audience when we just say "critics listed these as great" when we are not open that some games just are not applicable on terms that lists are static, and obviously become outdated, or even a contemporary one can't see the future.
    With the above suggestion, while I see that it might be a good idea to make a stricter list to follow weight, I can't imagine anything that would make most people say that works because by definition, all the lists are talking about different things. Whether they apply unique rules, or are instantly dated to the static nature of magazines or years of lists. I'm not sure anything would satisfy it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hmm, I think your horse example is a little flawed, because there's no bait-and-switch happening with the substance of this article. The video games on the list aren't called "the greatest" because they've reached an abstract standard on wikipedia. They're called "the greatest" because a source called them the greatest. This is exactly what the title of the article promises--we aren't presenting different content from what the title suggests, only a pared down version of the universe of possible options. The proper analogy is to List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses, which contains a list of leading Thoroughbred racehorses, but not all leading Thoroughbred racehorses. The undefeated horses section: "The list is not comprehensive for otherwise unnotable horses with five or fewer starts." The most wins arbitrarily stops around 60. The successive wins section says "The horses who were defeated but had ten or more consecutive race wins include..." Most wins in a season only includes those above 10, probably just because humans are biased towards powers of ten. Every section in that article has a cut off point, and that cut off point was made by editors, not sources. No source said "only horses with 60 wins get to be considered a leading Thoroughbred", and so editors have substituted their best judgement while basing the substance of the article on the general idea that "most wins" is a valid metric for determining a "leading" racehorse. I see the same thing happening here: the topic is notable, individual entries exist under the topic, and the entries are suitably sourced. Editors just need to determine a cut off point--that isn't SYNTH. Last point: Applying all of these as a balanced choice is misleading to audience... may be true about the list, but the list is verifiable, and our requirement is WP:Verifiability, not truth. If we tried to use our judgment to counter balance, as you point out yourself, that creates far more SYNTH/OR than we started with. The list may not ever be perfect, but the topic is notable and a consensus has been established that this is the way to cover it. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    You see, the Horse thing is a lot more "measurable". Its a sport, you get wins that are very basic measurable metric. I don't know about this subject, but its possible that its common to acknowledge ones that get a certain amount of wins in a season. Regardless, "wins" make more sense to count than something like best.
    Describing a creative work like a video game is not so simple. As you'll notice in those lists as well, they don't have a list of horses "voted the best" is not something a serious critic measures. For example, these quotes apply to film and music, but I feel like they are similar creative mediums we can compare. For example, this this article (about film to clarify) states best of lists "negate the function of serious film reviewing and criticism" and that these lists ""ignore major bodies of work which the critics are either unfamiliar with or are not interested in." While this interview with a few critics on NPR states lists are interesting to compare, they echo the statement about them having no real "weight" in artistic merit. They state that "when you're ranking things, that kind of adds another layer of, like, taking away from the art itself and trying to assign a specific meaning to this art that is hard to codify because it's art." or "We're often more kind of approaching these things anecdotally, talking about the stuff that really, really matters to us instead of kind of trying to collect a consensus around ranking the best." and "how do you measure something that may be aesthetically grandiose in some ways versus something that's quieter and, like, try to put those up against each other? It's like - it's really hard, and it doesn't really make sense." Gaming journalists echo the level of seriousness we should be taking to imply "best" for "best of lists". Hardcore Gaming 101 and Gaming Trends echoes this, stating "How could anyone possibly create a definitive list of gaming’s greatest accomplishments when there’s such a wildly large variety of games to choose from?" and "Nowadays “top X” articles on the internet tend to be seen as clickbait, hastily assembled list determined by some quick democratic polling of staff. the lists tend to be rather insular, usually based on whatever publication or forum assembled them" Similarly, HG101 also states their list starts with staffs favourites, and was built from there. The very fact we ignore the criticism on the validity of these lists to be simply taking that "they are the best" its impractical to use them as a form of measurement in terms of quality.
    So as you said Verifiabilty, not truth, True but we also have WP:LISTCRITERIA which states "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." In this case, yes, these games do appear on "best of" lists, no question. But from the above quotations, is combining them, or even using them explicitly a serious and good way to calculate "best"?
    While I think its interesting to see lists on a unique topic, like, Super Mario 64 "ahh, so the writers of the American company IGN and the Japanese critics in Famitsu or British magazine Empire all voted this game" but from the writing above, it seems to be implying that "if you take the list at face value, you are missing the point" as its a poor way to measure quality in terms of reach of what video games will reach different editors (IGN will write more about popular video games (HG101 writer saying "Rock Paper Shotgun, for example, has top 25/50 lists for many genres, but focuses only on games released on the PC. So reading about “best horror” games seems really strange when you’re omitting huge swathes of them, especially Japanese developed games. Similarly, computer RPGs and Japanese RPGs have such different fanbases that they’re almost entirely different genres, so there’s rarely any crossover on “best RPG” lists. IGN and other mainstream sites tend to focus on newer releases at the expense of gaming’s history." Not to mention, IGN has published 7 best of lists, and they are all currently used in the article. I think from the above, we can't make serious gamut for measuring or gauging some canon or critical consensus.
    Oh god I wrote an essay, I apologize @Alyo:, but I think we're both making good points here and getting somewhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Haha no worries at all, it's an interesting topic. I don't have much more to add, because as I flagged above, I think your interpretation here isn't widely held and hypothetical discussions can only go so far without actionable steps. The only place I really disagree with you is in the framing of your sentence, But from the above quotations, is combining them, or even using them explicitly a serious and good way to calculate "best"? I don't think that we are calculating "best" by combining sources. I think we are summarizing the topic of "best games" by listing games that sources have explicitly called "the best". The combination of sources doesn't change the verifiability of sources making that claim. I can completely agree with broad critiques of "best of" lists as they appear in reliable sources, but the end result for our purposes is a valid source that calls something "the best". That's the WP:Verifiability, not truth point--saying "X is a GOAT game" is verifiable, even if you agree with critiques that make that statement not objectively "true". You say The very fact we ignore the criticism on the validity of these lists ... its impractical to use them as a form of measurement in terms of quality, but that issue is already presumed/accepted under WP's groundrules. Again, WP:Verifiability, not truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Don't think of this article topic as "Games that objectively are the best of all time". Imagine that the article is actually titled "Games that a certain subset of sources have subjectively described as the best of all time, using different metrics and criteria and with different backgrounds and expertise". Under WP's rules, that's what the article should be including, it's just a lot less pithy. Alyo (chat·edits) 05:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Would WP:AUDIENCE come into play? I feel like "People who read Misplaced Pages have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." Because I think if we can state information from the sources below within the context of the list, it might help clarify issues. As the lists often discuss their own issues of "Best of" lists, I think this would ease any tensions editors or readers might have with the relatively flat opening. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Your question about whether to adjust the lede section of the article is a good question to take to the article's talk page. For what it's worth, the lede in my view does a poor job explaining what a reader is going to find in the list itself.Novellasyes (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Second^. I'm not sure that I would integrate commentary into the list itself, but the lead could certainly be expanded. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, definitely not into the list itself. Just in the lead or some subsection if necessary. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Southern Operations Room

    The Southern Operations Room uses as a flag the logo of a game cancelled 11 years ago Command & Conquer Generals 2 There are sources that depict the logo of this game although the only WP:RS is Electronic Arts (the game' editor) Youtube page as they've shutdown eveyrthing else related to the cancelled game from their official website long ago. However because there is no reliable source that has stated the logo origin - there is not many people remembering about this 11 years old cancelled game - i obviously got a WP:NOR as this is an unpublished fact. Any way to still get this bit of trivia to the page? I doubt SOR founders would be open for an online interview or a newspaper to write an article on it Irianelle (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    (moved from talk) ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hello, I looked at the YouTube video you originally posted, and I agree that the logos are extremely similar, and that your interpretation might be correct. However, as you have pointed out, it is going to be difficult to find at least one reliable source to verify it. Inclusion of trivia is not always discouraged in articles, but in general it needs to be highly relevant to the subject. In this case, without a secondary (or even primary) source, we are not yet at a point where we can discuss inclusion. Hope that helps! Choucas Bleucontribs 15:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    Use of rabbinic law literature in article on a Jewish ritual

    I'm doing a GA review of the article on Kiddush levana, a Jewish ritual that has relatively little coverage in secondary journalistic or academic sources.

    The article had relied largely on rabbinic law sources, including standard codes of religious law. These are primary sources. Nonetheless, much of the usage might meet the WP:PRIMARY policy conditions, such as: reputably published, used for statements of fact, not interpreting the facts, not the basis for the entire article. Many of these sources are in Hebrew and not available in translation afaik.

    As a significant improvement, the article now makes extensive use of an article in the Encyclopedia Talmudit (ET) -- about 25 citations. While the ET assumes an Orthodox Jewish standpoint, it is a highly regarded secondary source and aims to present a variety of (Orthodox) views. The ET is also in Hebrew (afaik there's an English translation but I don't have access).

    Questions:

    1. Are there any WP:RS objections to using Encyclopedia Talmudit extensively in this article? (There are sufficient other sources for notability, etc.)
    2. Is it acceptable to use rabbinic law sources, as long as the WP:PRIMARY conditions (above) are fulfilled?
    3. Is it acceptable to use multiple citations for specific sentences, so the reader can see both the ET article as well as the specific rabbinic sources that the ET mentions? (I think this will be helpful to many readers.)

    Here's a question that's not about WP:RS, but related: For the rabbinic law sources, may Misplaced Pages citations rely on the standard format? Even in many academic texts, the citations do not mention the specific publisher or (re-)publication date of rabbinic sources. Thanks for your consideration and responsiveness. ProfGray (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    There is somewhere an essay or policy called WP:RELIGIOUSTEXT. I don't remember actually what it's called. (That's a redlink). But I'd say ET looks reliable and good to use, as long as you keep it in mind that it's an Orthodox source so it shouldn't be used to write about secular topics or, may be biased when it comes to Orthodox views of secularism or other opinions that might be stated as fact from an Orthodox POV. But bottom line should be reliable for facts that aren't controversial or political, and for analysis that goes beyond that of a primary source as long as caution is used for potential biases. Andre🚐 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. So far I've found: Template:Religious text primary. Not finding an essay or policy (though I vaguely remember one from long ago). Sounds like you answered my Q1 with support for ET use, which means the page can avoid this template. Any thoughts about q #3? ProfGray (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that WP:CITEBUNDLEing or adding multiple cites to support the analysis with the primary source is a good idea. Andre🚐 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, perhaps? Or WP:RNPOV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for those links, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but these rabbinic law sources are not scripture, so thankfully they've much less interpretive range and they're much easier to paraphrase factually. At this point, most key points based on such primary sources are backed up by Encyclopedia Talmudit. It's true the article depends heavily on Hebrew sources, but that's allowable. I will do a spot check, for GA review, and there are many other Hebrew-reading editors who can correct mistakes, as with any WP article. // Belated @Dovidroth ping. ProfGray (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Edits to “Game Science”

    Discussion regarding Game Science has grown into an intense deadlock where the other editor insists that I have not read their arguments. I would appreciate your comment at Talk:Game Science#Interview-based edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Jackal (character)

    The article Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) seems to consist almost entirely of OR. As of the most recent edit as I'm writing this, of the 10 references, 8 are to the original text, 1 is to an article about the movie, and only 1 article actually has any coverage of the character separate from the film/book (though even there it's not even the primary topic). I considered nominating it for deletion, but I paused as the article has existed since 2006. It's hard to differentiate coverage of the character from the film so I'm not sure what the relevant guidelines here would be and would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. This is purely speculative, but it's also possible that there may be some COI editing from the TV network given there is a new series out now about this character. An edit I made removing some content that was unsourced and pure OR speculation about the character was reverted by an IP with zero edits before that, which came across as very odd to me and reminiscent of confirmed cases of COI editing from studios I've seen previously on other film/TV articles. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    SYNTH-edits at Team Seas

    There's an ongoing thread Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions on a contested edit to the article. The edit in question adds the reported amount of marine debris that enters the ocean from a 2015 study (years before Team Seas), and writes out the connection that This means that during the entire duration of the fundraiser, at least approximately 18,562,500,000 pounds (8,419,808,368 kg) of debris had entered the ocean (or about 61,875% more than what the fundraiser ended up removing). There is clear consensus of a WP:SYNTH violation, as it's inferring a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by the source (that the fundraiser is futile in the grand scheme of things). However, the owning editor has repeatedly argued against the consensus that the others have not adequately shown that it falls under SYNTH, and is assuming bad-faith, stating others are WP:STONEWALLING any true discussion or being dishonest. Would someone mind reviewing the thread and giving their input? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
    When challenged provide a direct quote from the source that supports the (amended) proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I linked it, you can read it yourself." They have completely failed to comply with verifiability policy. The discussion has gone endlessly with multiple editors it's SYNTH and the editor responding "I disagree" with increasing patronization. As shown with the above linked ANI, the editor will not WP:DROPIT on their own accord, so would another party kindly review and potentially close the thread? ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: