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 13:50, 17 September 2010 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,228 edits →Hijinks at Challenger Deep: ce← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:36, 29 December 2024 edit undo2806:269:407:3e6:4c86:2bab:1dcf:a0ff (talk) →SYNTH-edits at Team Seas: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{skip to talk}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
{{editabuselinks}}
|counter = 52
{{Shortcut|WP:NOR/N|WP:NORN|WP:ORN|WP:OR/N}}
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 This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."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}}.

{{backlog}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 14
|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}}
]
<inputbox>
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard
break=yes
width=20
searchbuttonlabel=Search noticeboard archives
</inputbox>
__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 ==
]
]

== Related to Topic Above, is using a Great Circle Calculator to calculate distances OR? ==

RE: Opening paragraph to the ] article. The lede was edited to include a number of distances calculated using a Great Circle Calculator. I opposed the edit at the time as ] but walked away when the proposers got needlessly personal. I see they went ahead and did it anyway despite the fact I questioned whether it was OR. Opinions as to its removal before I do so? The article previously said approximately 300 miles from the SA mainland, so I would propose changing the text to something close to that. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:See the previous discussion. Practically the same thing applies here though it might be acceptable to give an approximate distance as general geographical common knowledge. It would be far better to give a citation where someone said some figure even if not exactly accurate rather than calculating anything. ] (]) 12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::I think that we should take a step backwards and ask what Misplaced Pages is all about. It is about cataloguing information that is available elsewhere. Every Misplaced Pages article consist of information extracted, often in summary form, from one or more documents. Documents do not have to consist of text, they can also be maps or diagrams.

::Now back to Justin’s questions. If I can go to Stanfords (London’s premier map shop), buy a map and using the scale on that map, extract a particular piece of information, then I should be able to publish that finding in Misplaced Pages. It is, after all, no different to extracting a piece of information from any other source document.

::If by using Google Earth and a Great Circle Calculator I reproduce the exercise of buying a map and making measurements, then this is fully in line with my earlier arguments – moreover if I publish the coordinates used then the exercise is fully verifiable. ] (]) 12:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Do you have some actual real query or are you just here to argue points? Misplaced Pages is not a forum., please see ] which I believe also answers your point. ] (]) 13:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the response. I intend to remove the ] later and return to the previous lede. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm a bit concerned. the Falklands Island Government website says about the islands location that it is about 400 miles whereas the current text says 290 miles, I thought I read somewhere before about it being about 300 miles so why does the Falklands Island Government website says something so very different? ] (]) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::There's a bit of a POV thing around the exact distance concerned. The Argentines argue that the Falklands should be Argentine because they are geographically close to Argentina. Argentine estimates of the distance thus tend to be a tad low. The British argue that it's irrelevant, but their estimates (apparently) tend to be a bit high. This is why Google Earth was used: to get a distance that is independent of the two sides, to avoid claims of POV.

::::::Saying that the FI are 400 miles from South America is a bit like saying Cuba is 500 miles from the United States. Sure, there are parts of the FI that are 400 miles from parts of mainland South America - in the same way that there are parts of Cuba that are 500 miles from parts of the United States. But it's not a coast-to-coast distance: that's 290 or so miles to mainland South America. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Sounds like something for a consensus decision for the articles talk page. I'm certainly not happy with the 400 miles figure even if their government endorses it. I'm sure there must be some reliable citation that gives a closer figure to the coast to coast figure and doesn't suffer from a POV problem. Otherwise you'd be setting up OR in opposition to a 'reliable source'. ] (]) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::FIG tends to be somewhat Stanley centric and the 400 miles figure is the distance to Stanley, rather than a POV issue. You could argue for a mid-point of the islands group, a coast to coast figure is fraught as the Jason Islands to the West of the group are used as the basis for the Argentine figure; these are closer to Argentina but although under FIG control they're usually considered a separate group of islands. I suggest the discussion moves to the talk page. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::A quick look at the map suggests to me that this is the distance between the Mount Pleasant Airport and the closest international airport on the South American mainland. This raises the general case of whether a Wikipeida editor should do some basic research in order to qualify the original statement, and if so, to what extent. ] (]) 11:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Not the place for this dicussion. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::The point that I raised is a genenal point of which the Falkland Islands is a specific instance. That is why I raised it here. ] (]) 11:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::And this is a fine example of one reason original research is problematic. It may be acceptable in this case as a general knowledge sort of thing that people are interested in but it is still original research. Your definition of 'distance' is completely different from the Falklands Island government one. But even without that in general you can't just stick in figures you calculate yourself just because they seem interesting to you. Now it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. ] (]) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::: WP policy specifically excludes basic calculations from being original research. A Great Circle calculation would certainly seem to qualify there. The real issue here isn't the calculation itself, but from which two points you choose to calculate. The distance between two points has a precise definition; the definition of the distance between objects such as nations is, at times, open to interpretation. Many times two nations quibble over borders, especially islands, which can change the "distance" between them by hundreds of miles. I would say to avoid any political issues, the article should include language such as "as measured from the nearest point on the coast" or "from the international airfield", etc, to make the situation clear to the reader. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: IMHO that's stretching the bounds of "simple calculation". The examples given are "adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age". A great circle calculation is a fair bit more complex than that (not least because it ''doesn't'' give the exact distance between two points, and judgement is involved in deciding where it is and isn't accurate enough). --] (]) 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Eh? A Great Circle calculation *is* a simple calculation. It's repeatable, deterministic, accurate, and not open to dispute or interpretation -- the very spirit the "calculations" exclusion exists for. It also '''does''' give the exact distance between two points -- when those points are on the surface of a sphere such as the Earth. There are no "accuracy concerns" or disputes with the calculation itself. The only issue is when you're calculating based on ''regions'' (such as nations) rather than between two points -- you must obviously select what those points are. However, it should be painfully obvious that this isn't a unique concern to a Great Circle calculation; it exists no matter what method you use to determine distance between noncontiguous polygonal regions. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: The Earth is not a sphere. The diameter at the equator is roughly 40km more than the pole-to-pole measurement, which means that great-circle formulae do ''not'' give the exact distance between two points. Depending on which great-circle formula you use, you can also run into calculation problems - the most straightforward derivation leads to a formula that is exact ''in theory'' for spheres, but susceptible to floating-point errors, especially when the points are close together.
:::::::::::::::: Do those errors matter? In most cases, probably not. But there ''is'' more of a judgement call involved here than in the examples listed for "simple calculation". If I use a textbook formula to convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit on my calculator, or add two numbers together, I can expect that the answer is accurate pretty much to the limits of the display; that is not the case with a great-circle calculation. --] (]) 06:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== Using FRUs to make claims in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice ==

The question relates to this article - ]. A primary document - pg. 921 - is being used to support a claim that 'The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.'. The relevant paragraph from the primary document says "I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union." </br>
My opinion is that using this ambiguous (at best) statement from a primary source, which says on the one hand that the State dept does not issue formal recognition, but on the other that the the US "accpets" the action, to claim this constitutes recognition is not permissible, since it involves interpretation of a primary source. There are numerous secondary sources that state the opposite - e.g: - input is needed. ] (]) 00:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] intro ==

Editors are revising the intro to ], a controversial article that has inspired a couple of ArbCom cases. Here is part of the proposed text:
*''He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences.''
An editor objects to this text on account of it being, in his words, "a feast of WIKI:SYN". Here is the text in the article that it directly summarizes:
*''Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s. Some media reports said that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts. Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.''
Here are excerpts from seven reliable news sources:
*'''''He has a sprawling $80,000 split-level house here, plus homes in Los Angeles and India'''. There are two Mercedes- Benz automobiles for use in the U.S. and two airplanes. In London, his followers have given him a Rolls-Royce. Queried about this opulence, he asks whether he is supposed lo throw away gifts the mission accepts in his name. '' 11/4/73
*''The guru's "Divine Residence" in London is worth $125,000 and is only one of his '''many homes around the world'''.'' February, 1974.
*''Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in '''your several homes''' and your Rolls Royces.'' March 14, 1974 (reporting on a November 1973 press conference)
*''Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including '''a fondness for expensive homes''' and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary.'' April 9, 1975
*''In his first three years in the United States, new converts were common and their contributions led to the Maharaj Ji's '''homes in three states''', a fleet of cars, a wardrobe of flashy clothes and two airplanes. Followers are encouraged to live in ashrams, communal houses where the virtures of celibacy, poverty and meditation are practiced. "If I gave poor people my Rolls-Royce, they would need more tomorrow and I don't have any more Rolls-Royces to give them," the guru once said in defense of his worldly goods.'' July 13,1975
*''The young holy man owned a green Rolls Royce, a Mercedes 600, a Lotus sportscar, several motorcycles, '''homes in London, New York, Denver and the palatial Anacapa View Estate (complete with tennis courts and swimming pool) overlooking the sea on 4 acres in Malibu, California'''. '' 1983
*''Things haven't gone so well for the guru in the last 20 years, though success is relative. He didn't bring the world peace, as he promised, but at last report he was living in '''a Malibu mansion valued at $15 million, with other homes in England, New Delhi, Rome, Madrid and who knows where else'''; driving his choice of a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, a Ferrari or a garageful of other expensive cars; jetting around the planet on a $25 million Lear jet; or sailing on his $3 million yacht.'' 1998
Here is what sociologist ] wrote, which we quote in the article and the proposed intro:
*''Reports in the media were unfavorable, repeating often that he seemed to live more like a king than a messiah." 1979
Does the proposed text violate ]? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
:No, but it violates other policies, because you are seeking to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, cherry-picking quotes and sources to malign individuals or organizations that you dislike. A more straightforward and factual approach is to be preferred for encyclopedia articles. ] (]) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::First, I don't dislike this individual. I don't have any opinion of him. Second, we have scholarly sources (not just Downton) that say this was a significant part of the subject's public image. Third, I notice this is only your second edit to Misplaced Pages, and I'm not sure how you found this page or why you're responding here. In any case, thanks for your input on the main question. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

:I think the main purpose of the lead is to establish notability and summarize the article. This sounds to me like starting to do the article in the lead. It already summarizes this sort of stuff saying basically his thoughts are shallow and he lives the good life. ] (]) 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::The proposed text would replace some text already in the intro: ''Rawat has been criticized for ... leading an opulent lifestyle.''
::We're revising the intro to make it a bit longer and to cover more material from the article. I should have linked to the discussions. ], ], ]. It's been a difficult process. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::::''Rawat has been criticized for ... leading an opulent lifestyle'' is the sort of straightforward and prosaic wording that one would expect from an encyclopedia. At Misplaced Pages, editors with an agenda are always attracted to more flamboyant and provocative formulations like ''living "more like a king than a messiah",'' because it is more propagandistic, which is exactly the sort of thing that we should be avoiding. ] (]) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Be that as it may, we're just here to discuss NOR issues. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::The first thing you'll notice is that nowhere in the section Will Beback says he's summarising are "residences (single or multiple)" mentioned. The second thing is that Will Beback has provided quotes for his opinion that Rawat had "multiple residences" in 1973 but hasn't supplied the sources or importantly the dates of the quotes. New people to the topic may not be aware that the Malibu property which WB has told you was one of the "multiple residences" used by Rawat in 1973, wasn't bought until "November 1974 and served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters" (as per the article). Another source says "in the last 20 years" so it can hardly be about 1973. And several of the other quotes also contain material that dates it to the late 70s, even 80s. In short there is no justification for Will Beback to insert "in 1973 Rawat had multiple residences" into the lead.] (]) 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I've added dates to the excerpts, though I don't understand the issue with the timing of these comments since we're not saying that the home owner occurred in a certain period. The proposed text does not include "1973". The issue we're discussing here is original research and I don't see anyone suggesting that the proposal would be a policy violation. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
::"We're not saying that the home owner occurred in a certain period"?!?! Really? You are summarising the period 1970-1973 for the lead and in it you want to claim something happened and provide quotes about what was happening in the years '74, '75, '79, '83 and '98 to justify it. Apart from the fact that at 15 he couldn't legally own anything the only quote about 1973 you offer says "Guru Maharaj Ji lives comfortably with the other members of the "Holy Family" - his three older brothers ranging up to 22 years of age and his mother".] (]) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::No, we're summarizing the whole article. We're just attacking the problem section by section. As for the legal ownership of the homes, we don't get into that and neither do the sources. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::That's right Will but it was you who brought up "the home owner" in your previous post. And yes we are doing it "section by section" and the section you want to insert "multiple residences" into is the 1970-73" section. Could someone please take over explaining to Will that just because someone said something happened in 1975 or 1983 or 1998 that you can't claim it happened in 1973. ] (]) 02:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::A) We're not claiming it happened in 1973. B) It did happen in 1973, as well as subsequent years.
:::We're not discussing ownership in the intro, so let's avoid red herrings. The reason for this noticeboard request is to see if uninvolved editors think there is a violation of NOR. So far, we've gotten two responses and neither one has said that the proposed text has that problem. Let's not fill up the page with more of our arguing - there is enough info already for an outside editor to form an opinion. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::I didn't say it was OR, I said it was WP:SYNTH. Taking a comment about one year and saying it applies to another as per "do not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".] (]) 02:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::WP:SYNTH is a section of ]. See for yourself. The proposed text doesn't include any specific year year. Maybe you should re-read it. ''He also received media attention for living "more like a king than a messiah", with luxury automobiles and multiple residences.'' Nowhere does it say "1973". &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:I have been involved with this article in the past. The line in question does not appear to be a violation of NOR or SYN. As far as including it in the intro, I think there could be arguments made for either inclusion or exclusion. A content RfC, with separate sections for "involved" and "uninvolved" opinions, would probably resolve it. ] (]) 20:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
::Will Beback wants to put the line is question into the "1970-73" section of the lead which covers the period from Rawat's arrival in the west until the Millennium event of 1973. There is no supporting sources for "multiple residences" prior to Millennium. But it's academic anyway since it has, quite rightly, been removed from the proposal.] (]) 00:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
:::There is no 1970-1973 section of the intro. Intros don't have sections. Thanks for pointing out that the "multiple homes" were accidentally omitted. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
::The intro and the article, like the majority of literature, are written in chronological order so putting material that happened in 1974 before material that occurred in 1973 is confusing as in "Paint the walls and prepare them for painting".] (]) 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

===Can we start this again===
Start again, and NO-ONE argue about whether this guy is the bees knees or a dirty dog. Someone please explain in words of one syllable what sentence or paragraph is supposed to be OR or SYN and why. As far as I can see, summarising multiple newspaper reports that say he has been criticised for owning multiple accommodations into a sentence that says "he was criticised for owning multiple homes" is neither OR nor SYN. Quoting the king vs messiah line would be ] (it can't be OR because the quote exists) except that there are multiple sources which criticise him for living in a palatial manner rather than in the manner his teachings led one to expect. In which case, the editor was just picking the best summary text, as he is entitled to do. If you don't like it, I suggest you need the ], as this seems to be a dispute about how to represent this person's character, not anything to do with original research.] (]) 11:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:This issue has been blown out of all proportion. We were engaged in summarising for the lead the section in the article that covers what Rawat was doing between the time he left India in1971 and December 1973 when he turned 16 and took control of DLM US. Will Beback wants to insert -

"Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences made available to him by his followers.

I prefer -

"At the same time, Rawat attracted controversy, being ridiculed by the US media for his youth, his supposed divine status and for living "more like a king than a messiah".

In order to bolster the need to include "multiple residences" in the summary Will Beback has provided several sources that include "multiple residences", and here's where the WP:SYN comes in. Only one source is from 1973, the period we are summarising, and it refers to homes in LA and India. All the rest are from and about 1974, '75, '83 and 1998. It is clearly WP:SYN "to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and the conclusion Will Beback is implying is that is that there are multiple sources that support his claim that "multiple residences" existed in 1973. They do not. When I pointed out that the sources don't refer to 1973 Will brought the discussion here. I haven't suggested OR.] (]) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you. At least the issue is clear now. In my opinion you are correct to say that text about the view of this guy in the US in 1973 must be supported by references from 1973. If the text was a general statement of the US view, it would be OK to say that 'multiple residences' was a criticism frequently levelled at him. On the other hand, the king vs messiah quote may be ], unless there are other comments from 1973 criticising his flashy lifestyle. ] (]) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::The quotes Will provided come from the media. The "king/messiah" quote comes from the sociologist James V. Downton's "Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission". New York: Columbia University Press. He is the most authoritative scholar for this period.] (]) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Could still be undue if he was the only one saying it. However, given that there are also more lightweight criticisms in the media, I think it more likely he's just saying it elegantly :) ] (]) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::Actually Downton is referring to the media, he writes - "Reports in the media were unfavorable, '''repeating often''' that he seemed to live more like a king than a messiah". That's why I want to use it, a scholar's summary rather than an editors version of events.] (]) 00:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I don't know wht Momento keeps saying that the proposed sentence is limited to 1973.
:::*''Rawat also attracted media attention, being ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status, with journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences.''
:::There's nothing about 1973 there. The media attention covered about a decade, from the early 1970s to the early 1980s. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

I am not sure if this is more appropriate on the Fringe noticeboard or here. But this entire article seem to be nothing but a homemade unsourced essay, which claims that a sociological school of thought called "unbelief" has been in continous existence since the 18th century until the present times, where some fringe groups apparently adheres to a belief system of this name. The task of turning it into something encyclopedic seems enormous, and I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to delete it altogether until someone comes along to write a scholarly article on the subject? --] (]) 13:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like bunk to me, I've AFD'd it. --] (]) 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

:Good call. I will head over and support. --] (]) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

This article is presenting an argument based on an essay by a journalist. The only reference is that essay. As the article is not 'Kingsley Martin's essay' but instead purports to be a general article using that essay as a reference it would seem to be original research. --] (]) 21:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

: Note that this article was AFD'd by Utinomen on July 1st and closed as keep. (really should have included that in your post) <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 03:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

== Mathematical calculation ==

I have a question: is it original research to do a mathematical calculation on sourced numbers in order to provide perspective? Here is what I did, with letters instead of the original names of the things:

Up to $100,000 per year is raised by Y. However, only $300 of this total is given to each of 12 P each month '''(or about $43,000 yearly for all 12 P combined)'''

The bolded part is my calculation, and someone told me it is OR. 300 x 12P x 12 months so the calculation is 300 x 12 x 12 or 43,200.

Thanks for your help. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

:The multiplication itself is basic and not OR... however, if you draw any conclusions from the multiplication it could be. ] (]) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

::Right. No conclusions were drawn. Thanks (: Anyone else want to weigh in? '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 00:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:::In theory it's ok - keeping in mind that there are lots of ways to make it not ok. ] (]) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Right, there are many ways to POV push, and practically anything can be used to do so. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 01:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This question seems to come up quite often. Perhaps it's worth thrashing out a guideline to clarify ] on this? (My personal view is similar to AFH's; routine calculations are OK, but people aren't always able to recognise when their calculations are non-routine.) --] (]) 03:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

: but might be expanded into deductive reasoning. Like if the first source says that A and B both have the same father and the second source says A's father is C we can say B's father is C. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:I would be very unhappy about anything that encourages synthesis. Two different sources will often have different contexts and different shades of meaning; taken individually they're both reasonable, but trying to squeeze more meaning out of the combination gets us into trouble.
:For instance, one of my family members A was adopted at birth by C, but is in contact with his biological mother D and her other child B. He refers to both C and D as 'mother' on different occasions - so you can find a source that says A and B have the same mother, and another that says that A's mother is C, but it would be wrong to conclude that B's mother is C. I've seen issues like this trip people up quite often, on and off WP.
:Obligatory syllogism:
:Source A: "Nothing is better than eternal happiness."
:Source B: "A ham sandwich is better than nothing."
:Synthesis: "A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness."
:--] (]) 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

::Lol... that's cool, playing on contexts of the word "nothing." You may be right but it's a sad comment on common sense. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__]</sub> 02:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I'd translate the policy as suggesting simple math is okay, while conclusions formed from syllogisms are not. ] (]) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Even sensible people get tripped up sometimes when they don't know enough about the field. Some of the problem areas I've seen:
:::* Epidemiology: Source A says "In 2005 the rate of HIV infection in West Fenwick was 600 cases per 100,000." Source B says "For East Fenwick, rate of HIV infection in 2005 was 120 cases per 100,000." It appears reasonable to say that in 2005 the rate of HIV infection for West Fenwick was 5x greater than that for East Fenwick... but 'rate of infection' can refer to several different things. It could refer to the ''prevalence'' (what proportion of people are HIV-positive?) or it could report to the ''incidence'' (what proportion of people become infected each year?) Within those, there's also the question of whether we're looking at ''reported'' rates, or estimates that attempt to compensate for underreporting.
:::*Demography: The Australian Bureau of Statistics that in the 2006 Census, 6.3 million people indicated English ancestry, 1.8 million Irish, and 1.5 million Scottish (plus some smaller number Welsh, not going to go digging for it just now). If we don't want to include every single nation in the article on Australia, it looks reasonable to add these numbers up into a "British Isles" category. The catch is that the survey allowed people to give multiple answers, so simple addition gives the wrong answer. (We had a long and tedious argument about this a while back over on ].) --] (]) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

== Renoir (surname) ==

(Unsure if this belongs here or BLP noticeboard; will post on both for now.)
Article Renoir (surname) addresses origin of name Renoir and lists prominent members of the artist's family. http://en.wikipedia.org/Renoir_(surname) In Feb 2010, IP user introduced a "Gabrielle A. Renoir" to the article, including a spam link to a page advertising a novel in progress. In June, this edit was noticed and challenged. Since then, IP user and user WikiEditorandWriter have persistently introduced edits and comments that appear to directly and indirectly associate this "Gabrielle A. Renoir" with the artist's family without providing supporting references. Rather than continue an edit war, would ask a more experienced editor or an admin to take a look at the page and ensure that material meets Wiki standards on verifiability, COI, and NPOV.] (]) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
{{Resolved|] (]) 20:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)}}

== ] ==

Can somebody have a look at this?</br>
There is a controversy/edit-war at ], and this section seems to be the sticking point: </br>
"The Arctic explorer ], in 1906, was of the opinion this was incorrect <ref> "Spitsbergen is the only correct spelling; Spitzbergen is a relatively modern blunder. The name is Dutch, not German. The second S asserts and commemorates the nationality of the discoverer." – Sir Martin Conway, ''No Man’s Land'', 1906. </ref> ''though this had little effect on British practice<ref>Lockyer, N ] (1896)</ref> <ref> ] (1908)</ref>''" </br>
The part in italics has been deleted as OR. Is this statement original research? And if so, how should it be fixed?

'''notes'''
{{reflist}}

'''Background''':Just to be in the clear, this is the latest chapter in a wrangle which has lasted a couple of months. It started ] (my talk page), and continued on talk pages (User:Jonas Poole, now deleted), ] (PQ 18 OOB), ] (Spitsbergen) and is currently ] (Spitsbergen, new section). ] (]) 10:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can I ask for some eyes at ]? Editors there apparently dissagree with a few of the sources listed in the article and are adding their personal analysis , using other sources, to "explain" why the sources are incorrect. I have tried to explain the talk page that this violates ], but am not getting anywhere. There may be some nationalistic pov's in the mix there. --'']] ]'' 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==

The main body of the article is OR. At least the editor who has inserted it has refused to produce any references to the text despite of a year of requests to her on the talk page. A fortiori, the material is rather contentious, featuring unverified claims of Rotaru being the first or the best in a number of things. It is difficult to verify the claims for a non-Russian editor as a lion's share of the material published on the topic is in Cyrillic. Advice on how to proceed would be most appreciated. --] (]) 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== Self-medication ==

IP ] edited to have an opposite meaning to before. Looking at ], this appears to be something of a trend. I could simply revert this last edit (though how do I know the user isn't correcting a mistake?), but there seems to be an ongoing attitude problem here: frustrated with feedback about uncited edits, the user has taken to sneaking in OR by editing cited sections. I can't find any policy in ] regarding editing previously cited content. Is there something we can point the user to to clarify citation requirements? --] (]) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

the sources mentioned in the article are two phonecalls and a family tree (altought provided by a library). I may be wrong, but to me this sound like original research to me --] (]) 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Per ], this editor just doesn't get the point that he can't just personally synthesize a new way of categorizing the differing types of rules - including in a snazzy table. I told him he needs a WP:RS that describes this or any other categorization scheme and he says he understands. He says he's complying with WP:OR - which he evidently didn't realize existed before - by adding a couple of refs, but he's not. He needs more than one person telling him before I start editing out his WP:OR and an edit war ensues. Thanks. ] (]) 15:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I see what the problem is. the creation of a table in and of itself is not OR, unless that table is being used to create a novel understanding of the topic. what's the novel understanding here? --] 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
::In the lead he create his own way of organizing 4 different versions of what is called "the golden rule" and then uses typology of positive/prohibitive and passive/active forms. There are no refs for any WP:RS creating those 4 versions or those 4 forms. The table is just a latter expression of that WP:OR. ] (]) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I had a look at the references and I couldn't see any justification for the passive/active split and have said so in its talk page. In some societies they seem to have great problems saying to do things in the active voice but it is still a command and one can't guarantee what happens when they translate to English. ] (]) 10:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Agreed, it's an interesting categorization, but not supported by the sources as far as I can see. <span style="text-shadow:#DDDDDD 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texthtml">--] (])</span> 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

{{od}}
I think there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding:

*I'm not the editor who first created the "four forms" of The Golden Rule in the article on The Golden Rule. Nor am I the editor who created the two forms (done even before the four forms). I am simply the editor who formatted the four forms into a table. I did this after the "four forms" were already created into a numbered list by a different editor.

*The only reason I formatted these forms into a table was stated in my "Edit summary": It states, "created section to help those who are ]." My goal was to help, not to hurt.

*Since my goal has always been to help, and not to hurt, I would never start anything that comes close to an "edit war" over this type of issue.

*The description of the Golden Rule has gone through the hands of many, many editors. Here is a brief history:

** has the following edit summary: "Negative/positive form difference description"

**July 6, 2010 created a numbered list of two forms (done by an editor other than myself)

**July 6, 2010 - created a numbered list of four forms. (done by an editor other than myself)

**July 9, 2010 - With , I created a new section (much less prominent than the lead section) which formatted the ''existing'' list of four items into a table "to help those who are ]."

I want to stress that since my goal has always been to help, and not to hurt, I would never start anything that comes close to an editing war over this type of issue. Feel free to edit the article without that fear. (I'm not sure where that fear began. I didn't mean to frighten anyone with my long-winded discussions. Long-windedness and thoroughness is just my style.) - ] (]) 17:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'm sure we're all assuming good faith, and I appreciate your clarification. Seems not so long winded to me, but then, I'm a pedant who goes on a bit myself. Regardless of whoever first put this classification in place, it should go unless reliable sources for it can be found. <span style="text-shadow:#DDDDDD 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texthtml">--] (])</span> 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

::Glad to see you do see the policy problems, no matter who created it originally. ] (]) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

There's a long-running dispute on the talk page of this article about if the following passage in the article is original synthesis:

{{quote box|Sociologists such as Irving Horowitz and Peter Conrad have made comments on the role of the media. Writing partly in his capacity as managing editor of the publishing company, Transaction Publishers, that had published the Snyderman-Rothman book and more recently a controversial book by hereditarian researcher J. Philippe Rushton, Horowitz (1995) pointed out that researchers into heredity and intelligence like Rothman "sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known."}}

The supposed source for this passage is
{{citation|title=The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions|first=Irving Louis|last= Horowitz|authorlink=Irving Horowitz|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/kl058pkl12352v08/fulltext.pdf|journal= Society|volume= 32|year= 1995|pages=7–17}}, while the subject of the Wiki article is a book called ''The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy'' by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, published by Horowitz's Transaction Publishers in 1988. Horowitz's article is about the psychologist ], but Rothman and Snyderman are mentioned in it in passing, and the article begins with a disclaimer saying that "This statement reflects the views of its author, not only as an academic concerned with policy-making and social sciences, but also as a publisher of academic and scholarly books". However, ''The IQ Controversy'' book is not mentioned in Horowitz's article, nor is it said in it that Horowitz has ever published anything by Rothman or Snyderman; Rothman and Snyderman are not even mentioned in the same sentence. Horowitz's 10-page article contains only the following two passages about Rothman and Snyderman:

{{quote box|To be sure, in a thoughtful and sympathetic early review of the Rushton book in The National Review (September 12, 1994), Mark Snyderman wamed of the barrage to come. "Philippe Rushton has written his own epitaph. Any genetic predisposition toward the defense of one's race only adds to the near impossibility of rational response to the scientific study of race in a world that has seen the Holocaust and racial subjugation...Rushton's work may be ignored by the fearful, damned by the liberals, and misused by the racists. It is unlikely to be truly understood by anyone." Subsequent events have proved Snyderman prophetic; although Malcom Brown's review in The New York Times Sunday Book Review made a valiant effort at understanding and empathy.
<br>...<br>
In the 1960s there was the work of the late William Shockley, in the seventies that of Arthur Jensen, and in the 1980s that of a group of people much closer to media studies, such as Stanley Rothman. These individuals sought media attention as a mechanism for making their policy views known.}}

The question is if Horowitz's article can be used as a source in an article about ''IQ Controversy'' book. More specifically, firstly, is it correct to say that Horowitz writes in the capacity of Snyderman and Rothman's publisher, even though he does not say in his article that he has published anything by Snyderman or Rothman, and, secondly, is it correct to imply that Horowitz talks about ''The IQ Controversy'' book when he says that Rothman has sought media attention as a mechanism for making his policy views known, even though the book is not mentioned at all by Horowitz? In other words, is Horowitz's article directly related to the ''IQ Controversy'' book and does it directly support the material in the article?

This is, as such, a very minor issue, but it has been hotly debated, because ] is one of the articles related to the ], which was recently the subject of ], leading to, among other things, the topic-banning of several users involved in this original synthesis dispute. I'd appreciate if some experienced users who are not involved in this dispute commented on this, as it might also help resolve similar disputes in related articles.--] (]) 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

: I would point out, for editing ] (which is about a book) that there is no doubt that Horowitz was the publisher of the book, and there is no doubt (from the overall context of his article, which I have in a full-length copy) that his article is about the practices of his publishing house over a long span of time, including when it published the book by Snyderman and Rothman. I am not the author of the disputed paragraph, and I am not particularly invested in how it is worded, but my interpretation of the Misplaced Pages sourcing rules is that it is excellent editorial practice to find a reliable secondary source by a book's publisher when editing a Misplaced Pages article about a book. P.S. Thanks to Victor for bringing this issue to the attention of this noticeboard, which will offer some uninvolved editors a chance to ponder the issue. -- ] (]) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No takers?--] (]) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

== Potentially libelous original research in Elie Wiesel entry ==

A single user has repeatedly inserted original research claims in the entry for Nobel Laureate ] that he has no Auschwitz tattoo, notwithstanding that Wiesel has written extensively about his tattoo. The only evidence of this claim is a link to a YouTube video with selective edits, out of context, from a documentary about Wiesel revisiting his hometown. The sound is removed from the clip and someone has re-edited with a biased point of view. To use this as a "source" clearly seems to violate the original research policy, and I wrote on the Elie Wiesel ] as to why. It might help if some seasoned editors took a look at this article. The user inserting the original research is "]" and he/she has only ever edited this single article and only added the claims about the tattoo. As another user wrote on the talk page, it is potentially defamatory to make such a claim about Wiesel in his Misplaced Pages article. I agree this could be libelous because it questions Wiesel's honesty and the accuracy of his published books. ] (]) 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:Since youtube is generally not considered a reliable source, I'm not sure if we need to decide the question of OR in the first place. <span style="text-shadow:#DDDDDD 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texthtml">--] (])</span> 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::Do you have a link for that particular policy? It would help if I could add that in the talk page. I was not aware of that policy. Thanks. ] (]) 17:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

:: it's ] and novel synthesis and should be removed on sight. --] (]) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Cameron Scott, looks like someone else out in the net agrees, the url is dead now. 71.175.4.207, see ], short version is such videos are self-published and cannot be verified. <span style="text-shadow:#DDDDDD 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texthtml">--] (])</span> 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Quotes from the Bible being used without a RS and claimed as references for Israelites being white ==

An IP address added this this morning. As I thought and still do that it a list of quotes with the introduction " There are quite a lot of Bible references to the Israelites being white. For example : " is original research, I removed the section, leaving an edit summary saying it was OR. It was replaced with the edit summary "Quoting from the Bible is no more O.R. than is quoting from the New York Times". This isn't the only OR in the article. ] (]) 07:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
:"Quoting from the Bible is no more O.R. than is quoting from the New York Times".... Classic. That's going on my wall of fame. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, merely quoting from a source (any source) ''isn't'' automatically OR. The potential for OR happens when we attempt to tie the quote into the article's topic... when an editor analyzes or interprets the quote and says that the quote has any baring on a particular topic. That is what is happening here. An editor is ''interpreting'' passages from the bible as ''meaning'' that the Israelites were white.
::That said, I am not sure that this is completely OR... I have a feeling that it is just POV writing and a lack of proper sourcing. After all, the bible has been used and misused to "prove" various racial (and racist) theories for centuries... I would ''expect'' to find lots of sources that use the bible to "prove" the Israelites were white (and, given the nature of antisemitism, I would also expect to find sources that use the bible to "prove" they were not).
::Given the likelihood of this, what is needed is ''attribution''... instead of going right to the primary source (the bible itself), the article needs to tell the reader ''who'' uses the bible to make the claim... what is needed is attribution to a secondary source: "According to Rev. Ima Bigot, dean of Biblical Studies at State University (1903), the bible makes several references to the Israelites being white, including... " ] (]) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

: I've read the entire Bible in its original languages after quite a few reads of it in various translations into other languages (both Indo-European and non-Indo-European), and it is completely anachronistic to claim that the Bible follows the "race" categories sometimes mentioned in modern Western culture. That's a misreading of the Bible. Anyway, on that issue the Bible would not be a reliable source. -- ] (]) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

::Blueboar, I agree - on the talk page of the editor who I quoted above, I said " Using the Bible in this way is classic original research. It would be ok to say 'notable person x says that this quote and this quote show the Israelites are white', but you need a WP:RS to do it. Some editor saying that is original research.. ] (]) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::: While I agree with Dougweller here that the editor is engaging in OR, I have to take exception to Weiji's statement that the Christian bible isn't a reliable source for an article entitled "The Race of Jesus". Unless God himself rides down on a flaming chariot to edit the article, what more reliable source could there be? The historical record is pretty much mute on the personage of Christ. (and I'm an atheist btw). ]<sup>]</sup> 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

:::: I'm not disagreeing with the proposition that there isn't a ''more'' reliable source about Jesus as a historical personage, but sticking with my proposition that the Bible is not a ] on an issue of "race" of the Israelite people (an issue actually not addressed at all by the Bible in modern terms). -- ] (]) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: Given the only source that implies Jesus was a Semite is the Bible itself, I think you'd have difficulty arguing against a Biblical passage that called him white....assuming such a passage existed, of course. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::The Bible is a primary source ''as we use the phrase'', and our policy says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." ] (]) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::: That's what I said, isn't it? If a biblical passage existed that said Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian, that would certainly qualify as a reliable source. The problem here is that the IP editor is interpreting adjectives like "fair" (handsome or comely) or "lily white" (assumed poetic hyperbole) as relating to race. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just thought it would be useful to cite policy. ] (]) 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

== Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg ==

Please join the discussion at ], continued at
:]
] (]) 09:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

== Claiming to contact the Author of an RS, then using the purported email as a source in discussions on the talk page about the content of the article. ==

In a series of edits and ] Wishes that we consider a email she received from the author of one paper as a source. They want to use it to argue about what should be in the article on the talk page.

My reading of ] and ] ] has such a email as not being a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, not verifiable by the average reader in any reasonable way, and in particular Original research.


I have no way of knowing weather or not that supposed email is authentic, none what so ever. In fact even if I emailed the author in question it would still be OR because the next editor to come along could not verify it, unless we expect the author to answer emails ad infinitum.


What say the rest of you?--] (]) 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

: It should be noted that this is the second time today a conflict with Hfarmer has gone to a noticeboard. Please let me give you the actual background of this subject, with cites.

: Hfarmer has been trying to oppose, against the wishes of most of the people discussing the subject, the merger of the article ], an article which she considers "her baby".

: The proposal is to merge the three separate, highly redundant, confusing articles on Ray Blanchard's theories of transsexuality (], ], and ]) into one. "Homosexual transsexual" is a term that, due to its confusing (since transsexuals change gender) and oft-insulting nature (it assumes the birth gender), is almost completely unused outside of the context of discussion of Blanchard's theories. Blanchard's mentor, Freund, used the term as well; Blanchard's theories are derived from Freund's.

: To argue against the merger, Hfarmer has been trying to come up with "independent support" for the term in other papers. First, she tried proof by ghost reference with Zucker et al (2003), insisting that a term was used in papers that didn't discuss it at all. When it was exposed that the paper didn't say at all what she said it was about, she switched focus to papers from Vasey about the ]. This was always an odd choice, since she even admitted that Vasey didn't use the term, but insisted that "androphilia" (love of men) means the same thing as "homosexual transsexual" (it doesn't; a straight woman is androphilic). It's even an odder choice because the Fa'afafine aren't transsexuals. Yet she kept insisting that the papers proved independent confirmation of "homosexual transsexual" being a valid topic outside of Blanchard's theories.

: Rather that insist that the sky is blue over and over, I decided to simply email Vasey. No surprise -- just like the last time, when I had to do this with Moser, Vasey staunchly disagreed with how Hfarmer was representing his papers.. Rather than accept that she is misrepresenting his paper (in a way that I still can't comprehend how she could possibly think it's about "homosexual transsexuals" without using the term or being about transsexuals), she instead accuses me of ]. Yes, that's original research on ''a talk page'', not the article, for quoting the author of a paper about how someone is grossly misinterpreting his paper.

: I obviously welcome any outside input.

: As a final note: if anyone wants to verify with Vasey himself, his email address is which you can find on -- ] (]) 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Whoa, wait a minute: Hfarmer, are you this? ] In particular, votestacking? You posted private messages to at least one person who you've . -- ] (]) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Nothing wrong with contacting someone and noting what they say on the talk page... the information gathered by e-mail, however, can not go in the article and the e-mail be used as a source. ] (]) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I concur, personal correspondence such as this is clearly OR, and should not be used. That it's being used for talk discussions is slightly different than using for an article, but nonetheless, I think it's not a good approach. Also, it is probably best to not post people's email here. <span style="text-shadow:#DDDDDD 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texthtml">--] (])</span> 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

== British Empire - 15 million Indian famine deaths ==

I am claiming a ] violation in the following statement of the featured article "] ":

{{cquote|India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to ] in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect.<ref>], pp.&nbsp;133–34.</ref>}}

Pages 132, 133, 134 from the cited source are being used - . My reasoning is that the editor has juxtaposed two sentences in a way that attempts to shift the blame of the famine deaths from the British government to British East India Company (EIC). The source records (and it is universal knowledge) that power transfer of governing of India from the EIC to the British government happened in 1858. The source clearly states that all of the relevant famines happened after the British government assumed power. Yet ] denies that this is WP:SYN. The discussion is found on the talk page of the ] - .

Please provide an outside third opinion to eliminate any misunderstanding. Thanks. ] (]) 04:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
:Per the cited source, all the article says is that there was a change in policy - from the East India Company having no coordinated policy re droughts etc, to the British Crown setting up investigative commissions after famines. It is not assigning blame (famines weren't invented by the British - they occurred under the Mughals too you know) and there is no synthesis here at all - the text faithfully conveys the meaning of the cited text. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
:The passage seems fine to me. I don't see any 'blame' being assigned. ] (]) 08:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
: If it did not have "which took until the early 1900s to have an effect." then i could see how it may mislead people but the paragraph looks neutral, covers the main points and is backed up by the source. This is not Synthesis. ] (]) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut is adding POV stuff to articles as well. This edit clearly lacks neutrality and needs some attention. ] (]) 10:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a bit wrong to me. The major famines during the East India Company' rule were in the eighteenth century, just taken on its own mentioning the nineteenth century one might ask why would they put in widespread measures about famine. It sounds like there is a little bit of synthesis but it should be easy enough to fix. ] (]) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
:Synthesis is combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion none of the sources reach by themselves. Given that this is all from one source, and given that the conclusion stated in the text is the same as the one in the source, can you please explain in what way it is synthesis, even "a little bit" of synthesis? <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
::The two sentences require careful reading. It took me three goes to pick up "during its period of rule" - I was too confused by the mention of the 19th century followed by 1900. I think a change in wording would make it clearer, but there is no synthesis present. The source clearly states that there were famines in India from time immemorial but during EIC control the EIC opted to do nothing about it. When the British Crown took over, they started work investigating famines and started to put relief efforts in place, but this did not prevent some major famines in the second half of the nineteenth century, and it wasn't until around 1900 that they started to get a handle on things.] (]) 23:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Similar to my feeling about it as being confusing. And the table on the talk page talks about the company starting in 1818, what on earth is that date about? The really big famines under the East India company as far as I'm aware happened in the eighteenth century and they're the ones that should have prompted it to do something and they certainly had time to actually do something between them and handing over control to the crown. ] (]) 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
::::This is the NOR board, so seeing as we have established that there is no synthesis here, I suggest anyone interested in matters of confusion continues the discussion on the article talk page. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}Let's give this some more time than a mere day. Here's some simplification for readers who are feeling confused. Let's start with some background knowledge/vocabulary:
*British Raj (BR) is another term for British government.
*India was governed by EIC until 1858. In 1858 power was formally transferred to BR.
*Let's assume "late 19th century" is defined as the period between January 1, 1851 to December 31, 1900. This is our time period of interest.
There are three sentences involved here.
#Sentence 1 says: A series of famines happened during this period leading to roughly 15 million deaths.
#Sentence 2 says: EIC had screwed up because of inaction. No time frame/context is given.
#Sentence 3 says: The BR fixed things - again no time context given. It then goes on to say that the fixes of the BR took until 1900 to have any impact.

Juxtaposing these three sentences together gives the reader the following impression (IMO):
{{cquote|Famines caused 15 million deaths between January 1, 1851 to December 31, 1900. This was because of EIC screw-ups. Things got better after 1900 because BR fixed things.}}

This misleads the reader by suggesting that the EIC continued to screw up things even after it had given up power in 1858 (oxymoron). It also misleads the reader even by suggesting that the causes of deaths between 1858 and 1900 are to be blamed on EIC and not the BR. The reality is the BR was to blame for the deaths between 1858 and 1900, not the EIC. Classic ]. ] (]) 01:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, the ''real'' reality is that '''famine''' was to blame for the deaths... and it is an ''opinion'' that either the EIC (or BR or whoever) should have been able to prevent the famines. We need to be careful here. We should not state (or even ''imply'') this opinion as fact. If the author holds the opinion, we should directly attribute it to the author. ] (]) 01:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
:There is ''no such suggestion''. The sentence clearly states that the EIC ''had'' (past tense) done very little, but the BR instituted investigations. We ''all'' know that EIC rule ended in 1858, and nothing in the passage contradicts that. Your attempt to imply that this distorts the facts is wholly unwarranted. BTW, the passage says nothing about the EIC "screwing up", just that they just that they didn't do anything much, for whatever reason. Whether the BR is "to blame" for later famines is a matter of interpretation, not "reality", but there is nothing in the passage that suggests that such famines did not occur under the Imperial government. ] (]) 01:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

::The author states that the cause of deaths was starvation, not the famine. ] (]) 01:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Same difference. My point is that to conform to WP:NOR (and WP:NPOV) we should neither state nor imply any governmental responsibility for the deaths (or responsibility for preventing the deaths) unless the source does so... and if the source does so, then we should word what we say in the article as ''being'' the author's opinion. ] (]) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
::::The way I see it, this is not synthesis. It is possible, though unlikely, that the wording gives the incorrect impression that the EIC was unable to handle famines but that the Raj was. That is easily taken care of by changing the last two sentences to "After the end of the EIC in 1858, the British government in India set up commissions after each famine to investigate causes and implement new policies. However, it was not until the early 1900 that the results of these investigations had an effect." I don't think that would be a mis-stating of the citation. --] (]) 01:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: Id support that change, although i think its already clear enough. ] (]) 02:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems confusing to me. It is not clear that any famines occurred under East India Company rule, since the famines in the "late 19th century" may all have occurred after 1858. There would then have been no need for the Company to investigate. However, I do not see this as a POV problem. Whether India was ruled by a Company under a royal charter or by a viceroy, the ultimate responsibility would lie in the same place. ] (]) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

I think there is OR in this article in two places. The first is the comment in the lead "A recent analysis of a first draft of the Neanderthal genome by a team in May 2010 indicates interbreeding may have occurred, thus lending weight to Cuozzo's theory." where the sources don't mention Cuozzo, The second is similar, "An SEM micrograph has since revealed what appears to be a blood vessel in the bone/rock previously identified as the mastoid.". However here the link it to Cuozzo's website, and I'm not clear (too early in the AM) about its use here. Thanks. ] (]) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

== Somali Piracy - use of picture ==

Hi there, on the ] page there is ] being used that I don't think is appropriate, but ]. In my view, its use is inappropriate because it is unnecessary (doesn't add information to the article) and presents the matter with some bias (ie endorses the notion that Somali piracy is justified by illegal nuclear dumping). I don't know the rules on image use very well and was hoping someone here could give some guidance... Thanks a lot, ] (]) 19:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

:It seems appropriate in context - the section is largely about the relationship between piracy and dumping of that sort. why would you think this image constitutes original research? It might be that the section as a whole is OR (I haven't read carefully enough to render an opinion), but the picture seems useable for the section. --] 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't really think it is original research, it's more like synthesis or inappropriate use I suppose, I posted here because someone at the main help desk suggested so. My concern is mostly that the picture is included just because it looks neat and is freely available, while not actually adding to the article. I think there is also an element of it suggesting that these are pirates defined entirely by the issue of nuclear dumping - that they are pirates solely to protect their shores against nuclear dumping - when in reality it is at most a small part of their motivation. ] (]) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
::Ludwigs2 asks a pretty good question - whether or not the section itself is appropriate. I did a brief check, and many of the sources currently used there are somewhat questionable. However, a quick check also reveals that better sources are available on this topic. I added one to the article as an example. Re the image itself, I'm undecided. ] (]) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (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>}}
A certain "Keith Nell", former member of the Rodhesian SAS, is being quoted as the source of unpublished comments on this incident. I am tempted to be bold and remove them altogether. Thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:03, 13 September 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: Ask on the talk page, or check the history and see who added it so you can discuss the source. If no response, delete the material after a certain period. ] (]) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (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)
== Aspartame: OR/Synthesis Dispute ==


:Being tactful in my reply here to add the following:
I would like to resolve a dispute regarding my additions to ]. It appears there are a few bulldog-like editors patrolling it constantly, biting anyone who challenges ''their'' article. They keep undoing my edits, accusing me of all sorts, this time- original research and synthesis, wheras I beg to differ: I stuck to what the numerous reliable sources I cited say exactly. There is nothing original, I have not synthesized anything, and every single statement is ''verifiable'' - yet they keep deleting it all - every single word is deemed unworthy of their article!
: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 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)
::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. ] (]) 15:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Please can an administrator or two have a look through the aspartame page to assess this and make a decision on the content of my latest addition or my suggestions on the discussion, which I done to clarify a biased statement (explained in the discussion), or advise where to go from here? I don't even mind if it is all deleted, the only position I want to advance is a NPOV. It is quite a complex, controversial subject, and for a full picture, edits, sources and discussions of the aspartame page will need to be checked (which are quite lengthy). Thank you.''''']'''''] 03:53, 14 September 2010 (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. ] (]) 15:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:It certainly looks to me like you were putting in material that didn't refer even indirectly to aspartame, and that you were joining together sentences to come to a conclusion rather than summarizing somebody else's conclusion. So yes what your citations were verifiable, but they weren't reasonably closely connected to the topic and they were joined together in a synthesis which is what original research is about. I'm not saying the conclusion is right or wrong, what I'm saying is Misplaced Pages doesn't publish original research - it needs to be published somewhere else first. ] (]) 08:09, 14 September 2010 (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 ] 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 ==
::What would be your suggestion for improvement? It was not my intention to join it together to form an assumed conclusion, so could it not be re-written in a way that avoids this? You're right that they didn't refer to aspartame directly, but it was in the section for metabolized products of aspartame, (I.e. methanol), and the edits only pertain to methanol, a notable product of metabolization of aspartame (expanding the previous statement about methanol in fruit juice, which only gives half the story). Thanks for the input.''''']'''''] 09:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


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)
:::You clearly feel it is important to include something like this. However the policy is quite clear. The reason for this is to stop Misplaced Pages getting filled with things that people think are important but are not verifiably so, where verifiably means some reliable source has said something very similar about the topic. And the topic here is aspartame. There's an article about methanol which the references you provided seem appropriate to. You might be able to link to an appropriate section of the methanol article or other article that says what you wanted to say, but you can't branch into an inline essay about the problem unless that discussion is linked to aspartame in the literature. ] (]) 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, thank you for the clarification. And also, thank you for being civil about it.''''']'''''] 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::The article reports that the levels of methanol are lower in diet sodas than in fruit juices and are therefore safe. You have provided evidence that fruit juices are safe because they contain an antidote which aspartame does not. However you would need to find a source that makes that argument, rather than making it yourself. Of course there are other issues in presenting that information, but they do not relate to OR. ] (]) 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


: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)
== Original Research by editor Esoglou on the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. ==
::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)
]
::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)
The Editor Esoglou is attempting to force into the above article the idea that there is agreement between the two theologies of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church based not on Roman Catholic official sources and directly against Eastern Orthodox representatives, sources. The editor Esoglou continually does not like what sources (Orthodox theologians) have said about the differences between the churches and continues to wiki hound and edit war and go against consensus in order to deny or discredit or under mine what the sources posted in the article say. Please look at the ] section for example.
:::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 Editor Esoglou is doing this not by posting Roman Catholic sources or any sources information but by creating counter sources in misrepresenting Orthodox sources. Also Esoglou is wiki hounding by misusing source tagging requests and also not listening to corrects pointed out to by editors to the article other than just me. ] (]) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
::No, definitely not into the list itself. Just in the lead or some subsection if necessary. ] (]) 06:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I find curious the claim that I am trying in the ] to argue for identity of views between RCC and EOC, when I am only discussing different EOC views on the basis of EOC sources exclusively, and it is the complainant who wants the discussion to be about RCC-EOC relations and with RCC citations. ] (]) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


== ] photo == == Southern Operations Room ==
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 ==
This article of "A briefcase alleged to be the nuclear football"--i.e., a briefcase that some Misplaced Pages editor(s) think is the nuclear football. To me this seems like original research, but it keeps getting added back so other opinions would be useful.] (]) 21:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm doing a GA review of the article on ], a Jewish ritual that has relatively little coverage in secondary journalistic or academic sources.
:A briefcase that the person who put the photo in said was a nuclear briefcase. I don't think this is covered by the original research policy, I'm not sure exactly what policy covers a dispute by people saying they want more proof that a photo is correct but without any grounds that I can see for doubting them. The images as far as I can see are included for illustrative purposes rather than as an integral part of the text. ] (]) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


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.
::So you're saying that you don't think this is original research, or you think the evidence that it's the nuclear football is adequate? The grounds for doubting this would be that the nuclear football isn't publicly identified and there might be other reasons for military personnel to be carrying a briefcase in the president's vicinity. Everything is "covered by the original research policy."] (]) 23:53, 15 September 2010 (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).
:::I think both that this problem is not covered by the original research policy and that the evidence is that it is the nuclear football. The photo is identified in commons as the nuclear briefcase and I see no reason to doubt that. You should have better arguments against illustrative photos than you gave. Exactly how many people walk near the American president carrying briefcases like this? Do you think the whole idea of a nuclear briefcase is made up? Misplaced Pages customarily allows photos for illustrative purposes which haven't appeared in reliable sources and if anything the appropriate policy against that would be verifiability. You're not going to get very far with trying to remove nine tenths of the illustrations on Misplaced Pages on the grounds of verifiability though, the major ground you could use is that they are wrong, bad or doubtful and I don't think you have shown that. I believe there should be something to cover this area explicitly and there may be one but I don't know what it is. ] (]) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


Questions:
==Using maps to determine locations==
# Are there any WP:RS objections to using '''Encyclopedia Talmudit''' extensively in this article? (There are sufficient other sources for notability, etc.)
As per ] some editors have expressed concerns about using U.S. census bureau maps to determine whether places are located within a government-defined census-designated place.
# 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.
As an example:
Thanks for your consideration and responsiveness. ] (]) 20:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
* This is a city map of Falls Church, Virginia: http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Docs/Map_CityStreetIndex.pdf
* This is the map of the U.S. government CDP of Anandale, Virginia: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US5101912&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
* http://www.ensco.com/contact-us/office-locations.htm states the address is at "3110 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 300
Falls Church, Virginia 22042-4501" - Even though the postal address says "Falls Church, Virginia," put the address in a map and one will see it is well outside of the city limits.
* Fairfax County, VA grid map: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/maps/images/PDFViewerImages/TaxGridMap4download.pdf


: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)
Also, ENSCO is within an ] in ]. In Virginia cities are independent of and not within county governments, so it is not possible for ENSCO to be within Fairfax County and Falls Church City at the same time.
::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” ==
] is about the ] as defined by the U.S. government, not about any local understandings of the place. There have been no references supplied stating what the local understandings of Annandale, VA are. So the US government map is the only definition we have of "Annandale, Virginia."


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)
Secondary sources in the United States have a habit of approximating place names based on USPS addresses. I.E. a newspaper may say a place is in "Somewheresville, XT" even though the place is outside of the city limits, so in my view it is problematic to say that secondary sources always have supremacy over primary sources in this instance.
] (]) 12:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


== Jackal (character) ==
:Census maps are reliable secondary sources, and so are valid references. However, secondary sources can disagree... and ] states that we have to account for all significant viewpoints. A map does not "prove" that a place is located within a designated area... it merely verifies that ''according to the map maker'' it does so. So... it is fine to state what the US Census says about the location (and cite the Census map)... but you also need to mention what the USGS (Geological survey) says, what the USPS (Post office) says, and what other sources say. ] (]) 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
::How I handle this is that I say...
:: XXX place is located in YYY city/census designated place/town/whatever, near ZZZ.
:: What "ZZZ" is can be:
::: Nearest major/large city
::: City which some secondary sources may imprecisely say (such as the Herrington Chronicle may say XXX place is in WWW, even though WWW is 2 miles away)
::: USPS city name, if it does not reflect where the place is physically located.
::For instance the ] article says "The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center (Arabic: مركز دار الهجرة الاسلامي‎, English: Land of Migration) is a mosque in Northern Virginia. It is located in Seven Corners, unincorporated Fairfax County, in the Falls Church area." - We agreed to that after discussion of things.
::The actual location is Seven Corners, so that needs to be posted. But the USPS postal address and many media articles refer to it as being in Falls Church, so that also has to be mentioned.
::This format satisfies both the physical location (US Census Bureau) and the nearest major city/USPS city name.
::As for "it merely verifies that according to the map maker it does so." - The US Government itself creates the census designated places, so I believe that any map from a US government agency would be authoritative on this matter.
::However if other agencies all prepare different maps of the same CDPs, it would be good to know as it may be better to have a high quality map than a low quality map, for instance.
::] (]) 14:14, 16 September 2010 (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)
== ] ==


: 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)
There is a dispute as to whether or not certain material is synthesis at the article ]. The material in question is in diff. AMuseo argues that it is "inappropriate" to have an article on Judaization efforts by the Israeli government and not include what he feels is important material related to religious freedom. Two users, Tiamut and myself, argue that sources must relate that material to the topic of the article. Is it OR to include material that sources do not relate to the topic of the article? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
: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 ==
==Libertarianism==
Can we use the website of ] as a source for ]? An editor wishes to use the as evidence of the "predominant use of the term "Libertarian" in New Zealand's politics". ] (]) 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


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)
== Hijinks at Challenger Deep ==


:See also ] ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I need some help in the ] article. An editor has the frankly hilarious claim that a Berkeley Law article on the international law of nuclear waste dumping at sea can't be used as a source, because it doesn't mention ''this specific location'' (deep in the Marianas Trench) on the ocean. I point out the article makes it clear that any such dumping at sea is banned by treaty, according to the article, and that the article further states who has and hasn't ratified the treaty. He still continues to claim that, unless the law article has the specific text "Challenger Deep" in it, it can't be used in this article. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
::@] ] (]) 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:FellGleaming is asking for his edits to be personally exempted from ], ], ], ], and ] so he can push his POV on ]. The long and the short of it is that we have at least one good source, a textbook by David W. Hafemeister that discusses how nuclear waste could be placed in the Challenger Deep ocean trench, but that doing so violates the ] treaty. However, paraphrasing from the sources is not good enough for Fell. He wants the article to advance the position that the United States and Russia don't have to follow the treaty. I pointed out to Fell that this is not in the Hafemeister source. Fell believes he can use any source on any topic to advance his position, which tells me, that even though he's been here since 2008, he still doesn't get the sourcing policy and guidelines. It isn't even clear how he proposes to use this off-topic source. Although it is difficult to understand his motivation, according to the page history, Fell previously deleted content that stated dumping was banned by treaty, making it seem like dumping nuclear waste in the trench was not only possible, but a good idea. When I showed him that the Hafemeister source said it was banned, he then said that U.S. and Russia don't have to follow it and demanded to add that to the article. As one can tell from the ] on the talk page, it is extremely difficult to communicate in simple language with Fell, so help is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:36, 29 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 and 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:


    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)
    @ThomasO1989 2806:269:407:3E6:4C86:2BAB:1DCF:A0FF (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: