Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 07:04, 29 December 2024

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 WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N 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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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)

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 Bleu_contribs 15:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of rabbinic law literature in article on a Jewish ritual

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

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

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

Questions:

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

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

There is somewhere an essay or policy called WP:RELIGIOUSTEXT. I don't remember actually what it's called. (That's a redlink). But I'd say ET looks reliable and good to use, as long as you keep it in mind that it's an Orthodox source so it shouldn't be used to write about secular topics or, may be biased when it comes to Orthodox views of secularism or other opinions that might be stated as fact from an Orthodox POV. But bottom line should be reliable for facts that aren't controversial or political, and for analysis that goes beyond that of a primary source as long as caution is used for potential biases. Andre🚐 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So far I've found: Template:Religious text primary. Not finding an essay or policy (though I vaguely remember one from long ago). Sounds like you answered my Q1 with support for ET use, which means the page can avoid this template. Any thoughts about q #3? ProfGray (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CITEBUNDLEing or adding multiple cites to support the analysis with the primary source is a good idea. Andre🚐 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, perhaps? Or WP:RNPOV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but these rabbinic law sources are not scripture, so thankfully they've much less interpretive range and they're much easier to paraphrase factually. At this point, most key points based on such primary sources are backed up by Encyclopedia Talmudit. It's true the article depends heavily on Hebrew sources, but that's allowable. I will do a spot check, for GA review, and there are many other Hebrew-reading editors who can correct mistakes, as with any WP article. // Belated @Dovidroth ping. ProfGray (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits to “Game Science”

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

Jackal (character)

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

There's a guideline for writing about novel plots: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot. I interpret that section to allow Wikipedians to forthrightly describe/state the plot of a novel without citing that out to external sources (other than the novel itself). In other words, it's not considered to be WP:OR to do that. But you have to do it well (as described in that section). The plot summary in the Jackal (The Day of the Jackal) could use improvement (and a lot of shortening) but that's a separate issue from whether it is WP:OR. My two cents. Novellasyes (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't be written like this, but there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles with sourcing this bad. If OR is removed, then it's the responsibility of the person restoring it to provide a reliable source with it, so you're in the right to challenge their restoration. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Plot summaries are meant to be concise, at the moment this is anything but concise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH-edits at Team Seas

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

See also this recent discussion at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly SYNTH; also bludgeoning by this point. I've left this edit, which I hope will help resolve the situation. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution