Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 44

Musical score
--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Article/section: Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543
 * Content: "The main theme of Ennio Morricone's film music for The Sicilian Clan is reminiscent of the musical theme with which Bach's Prelude and Fugue BWV 543 opens."
 * References:
 * The score of the musical theme with which Bach's composition opens is already given on the page (e.g. in the Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 section); alternatively, this file has it too; and if an external reference for Bach's original is needed also this may be given:
 * While the previous reference is maybe not strictly necessary, this one is afaics:
 * Previous discussion: mainly Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543
 * Comment: prerequisite is that those who want to verify the proposed content are able to read notes. In other words, this NORN listing is about whether the WP:NOENG policy extends to the language of music, that is, written music in Western notation; and OR-wise, whether the similarity is something anyone versed in that language would see or whether this is open to multiple interpretations.
 * Previous discussion: mainly Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543
 * Comment: prerequisite is that those who want to verify the proposed content are able to read notes. In other words, this NORN listing is about whether the WP:NOENG policy extends to the language of music, that is, written music in Western notation; and OR-wise, whether the similarity is something anyone versed in that language would see or whether this is open to multiple interpretations.


 * Headbomb has explicitly violated NOR with the statement "you have to be deaf not to hear it". On Wikipedia, we are not required to listen to music in order to write about it. Instead, we summarize what is already written. When someone insists that we listen to music, you can be assured there is original research happening. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment was addressed to me. At the time, I took no notice of it. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The score is a primary source, and should only serve as an illustration for the work itself. Adding the score as an illustration (or "proof") to the Morricone section, is WP:OR, unless the sources for that section also cite the primary material—which they do not; they only mention the name of the work. It's not ours to tell our readers "look at score, listen to the excerpt, this is where the pieces are similar". That's the job of secondary sources; our job is to cite from the latter. WP:NOENG is unrelated to the issue of OR. –Austronesier (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Austruneiser's comments completely. The musical quotation is in the current article in the section on "Musical structure". Using the quotation as "proof" of anything at all seems like original research. Stelvio Cipriani was not directly involved in producing the film (per IMDb): the film music was composed by Morricone, with Bruno Nicolai as conductor. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Another problem with the edits proposed here is that the blog entry (a.k.a. "received wisdom") and the excerpt from France Musique does not match up with the musical score. As can be verified on the archived film The Sicilian Clan (available on archive.org or in the video clip here at the Institut Français in Edinburgh), the musical score starts with the theme (15 sec)—a sustained melody performed as a whistle by Alessandro Alessandroni—with amplified electronic jew's harp twangs; then (55 sec) the ostinato starts on the guitar; then (1 min 24 sec) the whistling theme resumes now with a soft accompaniment in the ostinato; then (1 min 55 sec) the whistle is supplemented by a vibraphone (?); the ostinato is heard in the guitar and a mandolin (?); and then the credits end and the script begins. The original score and orchestration of the Morricone/Nicolai version is quite different from either Stelvio Cipriani's score or the excerpt from France Musique. Introducing either seems like a red herring. Mathsci (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thus far only one secondary source came to light. It is appended as a footnoted reference to the paragraph where I'd place the proposed content. This is that reference:""The relevant passage on that web page reads:"The influence of 'serious' classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example [...], and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969)."(See also discussion at Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543) I see no problem with adding a bit more precision to the rather vague "citing and arranging" (which of these applies to the BWV 543 example?) based on primary sources, that is, a rather straightforward application of the "plot summary" guidance (in particular: MOS:PLOTSOURCE), and the WP:PRIMARY policy (in particular, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." – assuming that "reading music in Western notation" is rather something "that can be verified by any educated person" than an issue of "specialized knowledge", i.e. not different from, say, the education one would need to read a primary source in a foreign language, which is not considered "specialized knowledge" in the sense of this policy, per the WP:NOENG provisions of the WP:V policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) (added sig: 09:13, 3 November 2020)


 * In the sections of the article on the musical structure of the Prelude BWV 543, I have used the books of Peter Williams and Richard D. P. Jones (mostly the former). Williams' 2003 text is the most authoritative and encyclopedic book on Bach's organ works. The score of Ennio Morricone was mentioned on the talk page of the article en passant. On that talk page I made it quite clear that the section about Morricone is what would normally be placed in a section entitled "In popular culture." That happens for example for BWV 582, Bach's Passacaglia, which has been used in films (the baptism in The Godfather), ballets, etc. As far as "The Sicilian Clan" is concerned, I've watched it quite recently on archive.org when I could hear the whole original score. (Other concert versions exist.) The only comment about the score that I would make here, is that is has a recurring "ostinato" (played off-beat over a 4/4 or 6/4 theme). In the case of the Prelude BWV 543/1, there is no "ostinato". The opening running semiquaver figures are described as disguised or latent two- or three-part counterpart with a descending chromatic scale in the lowest voice. That is what Williams writes. The musical quotation was used here:


 * BWV543-prelude-start.jpeg


 * to illustrate exactly what Williams wrote. The beginning of the Prelude is described as Toccata-like, in the stylus phantasticus, typical of the northern seventeenth-century style of Dieterich Buxtehude. In the article, almost all of the edits to the text and images are due to me (I checked the edit history, particularly for statistics). The relevant musical quotation here appears in the section on "Musical structure," as appropriate. As explained in the article, there are two versions of the Prelude: the earlier BWV 543a/1; and the later BWV 543/1. The later is the one used. I have used a miniscore which fits onto one line; I had to find an appropriate source and then use GIMP to edit and scale the image. There is also an early 19th-century manuscript of the Prelude from the Leipzig University Library in the article.


 * Apart from the "ostinato," I know that the film begins with a creepy melody on the jew's harp accompanied by unnerving guitar (??) twangs. Quite different from Johann Sebastian Bach. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow up on BWV 543 and BWV 565
While researching content on Morricone and Bach, I found four sources related to the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565. I added that content:


 * The Oscar-winning Italian composer Ennio Morricone, well known for his association with Spaghetti Westerns, took inspiration from the score BWV 565/1 for his 1965 film For a Few Dollars More, starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonté and directed by Sergio Leone. Morricone used the trumpet musical theme "La resa dei conti" ("Sixty Seconds to What?") for the opening baroque mordent of J. S. Bach's Toccata. The cowboy shootout takes place in a deconsecrated church, turned into a pigsty, where the theme is heard on the organ at full blast. According to, "It is [...] hard to establish what led the composer to quote Bach—perhaps the shared key of D minor led to the idea of the organ, whereas the small church might have at most accommodated nothing more than a run-down harmonium. In any case, for a classically trained musician such a glaring reference to one of the most hackneyed commonplaces of Western art music—certainly the most hackneyed within Bach's output (although its authorship has long been disputed)—clashes with the alleged intention of paying homage to the Eisenach maestro." In his autobiographical book written with , Morricone wrote that, "The death ritual carried out in a church convinced me to use the Bach quotation and the organ. Volonté's gestures in that sequence reminded me of some paintings of Rembrandt and Vermeer that Leone was fond of. Those artists lived in an epoch close to Bach, and with my music I decided to look at that kind of past."



Then, without asking for permission, User:Francis Schonken copy-pasted my references above, appropriating a lot of effort (for the Italian book I paid for google play & translate), and then substituted two short sentences which do not convey the sense of the two quotations above:


 * Ennio Morricone's film music for For a Few Dollars More (1965) takes inspiration from the Toccata. According to Morricone, "The death ritual carried out in a church convinced me to use the Bach quotation and the organ."

Without any attempt at discussion, he stated that his edit was to restore balance." It is possible that I could shorten some of the quotes above, but would have to be careful to preserve the sense. "Bach reception" is a respected musical discipline. It is used for individual pieces or whole sets of pieces, e.g. Clavier-Übung III. It usually involves carefully judged prose, not disjointed lists. These are not useful for the reader.

It was in researching the sources for BWV 543 that I discovered that the B-A-C-H theme was hidden in one of the main themes (B flat, A, C, B, but not in that order). That material is tricky to write about because, as Morricone writes, you would need sufficient musical expertise to sort out the puzzle: that would be original research. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Bright or shining, is it OR?
Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran

Discussion:Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

During Iran-Iraq war, People's Mujahedin of Iran carried out an operation against their own soil, i.e. Iran. The name of the operation is "". There are some sources calling it "Operation shining sun" with at least one other calling it "Operation Bright Sun". Both "Operation Bright Sun" and "Operation shining sun" are the translations for the original title of the operation, i.e. "". In other words, both "shining" and "bright" mean "" (see the Google translate results). Now, would it be an original research to use the "Bright Sun" source without mentioning this difference? -- M h hossein   talk 07:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Aren't "bright" and "shining" synonyms? Must be referring to the same thing, so I don't see an issue if you use the words "Bright Sun" without mentioning the difference. Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's fairly common for writers to use different terms to refer to the same thing and to translate phrases differently. So long as they are referring to the same thing, it's fine. TFD (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

David Guetta
An IP editor from the Netherlands has been constantly adding that David Guetta is "French-Moroccan", getting the conclusion from the link www.youthvillage.co.za/2014/02/15-things-dont-know-david-guetta/amp/, as his father (Pierre Guetta) was born in a Moroccan Jewish family. The editor is sourcing that he is Moroccan from 2, which never mentions Guetta as being French-Moroccan. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS (A. David Guetta's father was Moroccan; B. citing what Moroccan law says; Conclusion C. David Guetta is French-Moroccan).

What is worst in this case is that the page is pending protected and User:Helpthepeople9 has now accepted thrice these arguments. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Chile–Peru football rivalry
At Talk:Chile–Peru_football_rivalry, the user claims that his synthesis of statements by players/coaches is not original research. He claims that his synthesis proves that Chile has no rivalry with Peru, and even suggests the whole matter is a hoax. This is becoming difficult for me to handle alone, so I would appreciate additional eyes and input from editors to discuss the matter. Maybe someone is better at explaining this to the user. Thanks for your time.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing synthesis. The Chile-Peru rivalry is completely asymmetric, being much more important on the Peruvian side that on the Chilean. This has been mentioned many times in the Talk page and even in eswiki (in which most editors from both countries edit) it's been deleted.
 * To be clear, I'm not even requesting that the article be deleted, because it's obviously important for Peruvians, but this asymmetry needs to mentioned in the introduction. Obviously, there exists much more complete references from the Peruvian side, as something claimed to exist (in this case a fierce rivalry as claimed from the Peruvian side) received more attention (note that almost all reference come from the Peruvian side or echo them) that something not claimed to exist (in this case a fierce rivalry from the Chilean perspective). The fact the something not claimed to exist has not been reported about or studied in detail, does not mean that it exists. That's textbook Argumentum ex silentio.
 * Hence, I've summarized a lot of reference that claim the rivalry is much more important for Peruvians:
 * “Es parte de la idiosincrasia de ellos, de la rivalidad eterna que tienen contra Chile"(interview quote)
 * Para ellos, el Clásico del Pacífico representa un desafío importante, que supera el plano de un mero amistoso (press quote)*
 * “En Perú es donde más se hace sentir ese patriotismo. Para ellos es un verdadero clásico, lo ven como un complemento de esa eterna disputa fronteriza con Chile." (interview quote) (note that this reference was brought forward by MarshalN20 but he conveniently for his position ignored this part)
 * Similarly, I've summarized claims by several former and current nationals players and trainers, claiming tat the rivalry does not exist and/or that the game is not a derby, namely:


 * Gonzalo Jara: "Para nosotros el partido contra Perú es sólo un partido más."
 * Alex Varas: “Para nosotros no es un clásico. Para nosotros el tema de límites y guerra ya pasó. No es tema ya”
 * Jorge Aravena: “Es un partido de fútbol y nada más" and "es por ponerle un titulo mas rimbombante nada más”
 * Hugo Rubio: "No es un clásico"
 * Nelson Acosta: "No hay tanta rivalidad entre Perú y Chile"
 * Marcelo Diaz:"“si los peruanos dicen que no es amistoso, para nosotros lo es"
 * Arturo Vidal: ""No hay rivalidad"
 * Arturo Vidal: "Más allá de lo futbolistico no hay rivalidad" (note that the latter declaration came one week after declaring that the rivalry would exist )


 * I've tried to debate, with MarshalN20 but it's proven impossible, as he blindly defends that only the Peruvian position can be included in the intro. He also blindly claims that he's right and that the rest is wrong (and not only with me, but over years, as it can be seen in Talk page, everytime someone pointed out, that the rivalry does not exist from the Chilean perspective). He simple does not WP:LISTEN to anything that is said to him and defends . I asked him twice whether he would accept a WP:DRN, but instead he prefers threatening with filling cases if I don't accept his view. So I told him to go ahead and file a claim here. SFBB (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * All of these are just opinions from individual players. To reiterate what I have been explaining for the past few days, we as Wikipedia editors cannot synthesize opinions to invent a conclusion. That's original research.
 * Your proposal to include this synthesis into the introduction is promoting undue weight to a fringe opinion. The Chilean scholar Sebastián Salinas, professor of history at the University of Chile, writes about the rivalry and its origin (see ). The sports historian Richard Henshaw also writes about the rivalry, and how it boils down to Chile and Peru competing for the title of fourth-best team in South America, in his book The Encyclopedia of World Socccer (free to view: ). Neither of these scholars ever indicate that the rivalry is a Peruvian invention or "more important on the Peruvian side." On the contrary, their work explains why the rivalry is important to both countries and how it came to be that way.
 * Instead, you want to impose the opinions of uncouth football players as equal to that of professional scholars. Moreover, these players have very capricious opinions. Alex Varas is the goalkeeper who got scored 6 goals by Peru, so he is obviously angry about it. Nelson Acosta says "There is not much rivalry between Peru and Chile" ("No hay tanta rivalidad entre Peru y Chile"), which basically means the rivalry does exist (he never states the rivalry is asymmetric). The most blatant case is Arturo Vidal, who now in two separate quotes indicates that the rivalry does exist . These fickle opinions are exactly the reason why Wikipedia does not accept original research; it's simply not reliable.--MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 17:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I already made my points. And the evidence is there (and if more is required and can do do it). The problem is MarshalN20 handpicks which references and whose opinions are important and whose are not (and obviously less scholars address this matter in Chile, as in Chile it is no matter). I believe MarshalN20's last comment completely exemplifies, what I am stating. SFBB (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible OR: what the trial verdict did NOT say
At Talk:Baby Esther a question has arisen about OR (beginning at ). The issue: In the 1930s the singer Helen Kane filed a lawsuit against Fleischer Studios, claiming that their Betty Boop character had copied her look and her singing style (distinguished by a baby-voice and nonsense phrase "boop-boop-a-doop) without permission. Evidence in the trial included testimony from performers who said they had been singing in baby voice and using similar interpolated phrases for years. One piece of evidence was a film of a child performer, Baby Esther, which has in recent decades been cited in many books and popular sources as the critical evidence that persuaded the judge to rule against Kane. An IP has been arguing that the conventional understanding of this is wrong, and that Esther had "no part in the judge's decision". The editor wants the article to include the statement "[The judge] did not mention Baby Esther in his ruling", using the trial transcript as primary source. This is true, but does such a statement (what a verdict does not say) need a secondary source? Is it undue emphasis? Or is this a "sky is blue" conclusion that can be taken from the primary document? Thanks for looking, any help appreciated. Ewulp (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only it is not "The conventional understanding". In recent years, "Baby Esther" went viral on the internet. Based on misquotes, misunderstandings, and outright fabrications. A photograph of a Ukrainian woman, taken in 2008, was used as a photograph of Baby Esther. And all sorts of unsourced(and subsequently debunked) claims were trotted out as fact. There is the the issue of deceptive wording. Yes, Baby Esther was used in the trial. But so were MANY other performers. The way that it seems Ewulp wishes the article to read, would be that the Baby Esther evidence was the sole, or primary, evidence in the verdict. Whereas it is certainly true that the Baby Esther evidence was never referred to in the judge's verdict. It is up to the admins. But the article needs a major overhaul/rewrite regardless. 197.83.246.141 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A reliable source the IP added says: "Helen Kane lost the case. Why? The usual answer given is that Paramount produced a reel of film that was shown in court. This film depicted an African-American singer called Baby Esther, who used the “Boop-oop-a-doop” hot licks in her singing. Conventional wisdom tells us that Kane lost the case because the Baby Esther recording proved that Kane took her signature style from an earlier performer." The source concludes with a dissenting opinion: "despite conventional wisdom about this, it is likely that Kane originated the “Boop-oop-a-doop” phrase." (SAS Newsletter, Winter 2005, pp. 12-13). The IP has expressed annoyance that people believe this, and insisted several times on the talk page that Esther "had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome", an opinion that no RS that I know of supports. This is a digression. The issue here is whether a Wikipedia editor can read a source, think of something that the source doesn't mention, and then emphasize the non-mention. It's easy to see how this practice could be abused, but is it OK in this instance? Ewulp (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have been trying to find other sources on this, I think the way most seem to describes is that while the Baby Esther stuff did figure into the case (testimony that Kane had seen her "boop" and thus took it from there), the judgement was based on the fact numerous other acts - not limited to Baby Esther - showed Kane wasn't the first to "boop". So the fact that the judgement may not have mentioned Esther is not as important as that Kane simply wasn't the first. That is, yes, using this source and others, it is fair to say that the case wasn't decided solely on Baby Esther though her role in the case was considered significant in the conventional wisdom, but that the judgement found that there were many others predating Kane that "boop"ed that she could not prove her style was unique . This is without touching the case itself and just looking to what RSes talk about. --M asem  (t) 15:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with that. Contrary to the IP's characterization, I have not attempted to depict Esther as the sole or primary evidence in the verdict; a look at my edits speaks for that. But I've been continually reverted and accused of bias and even "hate speech" (diffs). There is likely to be a long struggle ahead, but as a first step I wanted to be sure I'm not wrong to regard the line "[The judge] did not mention Baby Esther in his ruling" as OR unless supported by a secondary source. Ewulp (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we can not state that a source omits information based on our own original research. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the exact same trial had someone testify Edith Griffith had used the phrase "boop oop a doop" in 1927, which predates everyone else mentioned here. What is the difference there? Edith Griffith didn't go viral on the internet in the 2010's based entirely on a MISQUOTE. I have explained this here . One should also look over the way this article was originally created(the first 4 edits were by the same editor): . As I stated on the Baby Esther discussion page "And here's the thing. Li'l Esther worked with Cab Calloway. She performed for royal families. She gained a degree of fame. Yet, this entire article was built on a DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION as to what someone in the 21st century had actually written. Again, read O'Meally, and then read the outright LIE that this article originally stated(and what hacks like Bellot repeated). In other words, this was never an article about the performer Esther Lee Jones. No, it was an incoherent, unreliably sourced attack on Helen Kane. And the foundation stone was a BLATANT LIE about what Robert O'Meally had written. Now, Esther Lee Jones may be noteworthy enough for her own Wikipedia article, but this isn't it.". I stand by that 100%. The editor Ewulp is also using what appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS to deceptively place a sequence of sourced statements together in such a way as to give a totally misleading impression as to their significance. And another very interesting thing is he is now building up information on Florence Mills, to back up his ideas. Again, the problem with the Baby Esther article is that it is not an article about Baby Esther. Most of the article seems to revolve around the Kane-Fleischer lawsuit, and Li'l Esther's place in it. And, as stated, it originally contained multiple factual errors and unsourced attack content. And it's ONE original WP:RS was a deliberate misquote. This article needs a complete overhaul, pretty much line-by-line. And if Esther Lee Jones' noteworthiness comes from the Helen Kane-Fleischer Studios lawsuit, then is she even noteworthy enough for her own article? )I'm not suggesting a deletion vote, I'm just making the point that an entire article about a performer is focused on ONE aspect, where editors, including the original creator of the article itself, have deliberately lied about what sources actually say) 197.83.246.141 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Original research map
Can someone please look into, this is a user-generated map that is not based on any reliable source. I have removed it from | Ajuran Sultanate per WP:OR guidelines. Was the removal appropriate? Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The description at File:Ajuuraan & Adal map.png says that it is based on
 * which would be a reliable source. I haven't checked the book itself to see if the map is actually based on it. — MarkH21talk 20:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , many thanks, I am aware of this book, and the map does not appear to be based on it. Would it be correct to assume in the absence of reliable sources the map remains OR? Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not actually based on the book as claimed, then it is probably OR. There is nothing in the book that resembles this map? — MarkH21talk 21:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the map that you created based on? A specific page number in the book would be helpful. — MarkH21talk 21:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, nothing in that book resembles that map. There is a map on p. 140 of the area but it has nothing to do with the subject of Ajuraan altogether. To answer your question MarkH21, the map is based on an older file that is also not based on any reliable source, it cites the same Cassanelli source without providing any further information. I think that settles it for me, I just wanted a second opinion, many thanks ! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, nothing in that book resembles that map. There is a map on p. 140 of the area but it has nothing to do with the subject of Ajuraan altogether. To answer your question MarkH21, the map is based on an older file that is also not based on any reliable source, it cites the same Cassanelli source without providing any further information. I think that settles it for me, I just wanted a second opinion, many thanks ! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi :: Kz155 refered me to this project page. The Ajuuran map is based reliable source and i showed it to him on a different talk pageUser_talk:Kzl55 with him being uncooperative about it and didn't respond back to me last nor explain how they were OR when i enquired him about it. I also clarified that all maps on Wiki are user generated, which he at first said that it had nothing to do with it. Now he is trying to accuse me of edit war by spamming my user talk page with it even tho i referred him to the previous talk page about it in my edits but he removed it all the same without explanation and took them out quickly not even pausing to look at the sources.

Reliable source for the Ajuuran Map : An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia 

This is is what the map was originally based on.

As for the Geledi maps i added two additional sources for it -

I listed them under the maps next to their description which i explained in the edits. Ragnimo (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Being user-generated is not the issue. The issue is the fact that the map is not based on any reliable source. A vague description of "most of south-central regions" is not sufficient to base a map on. With regards to the 2nd and 3rd sources, this is yet another vague description of "loose confederation of clans that occupied roughly the territory included in the triangle Brava - Baidoa - Mogadishu", clearly a vague rough estimation, and the map in question goes well beyond that area. Attempting to retroactively attribute an original research map to vague descriptions is not helpful. Do you have any sources that define all the points illustrated on the maps? If not then the maps remain original research. Please keep your comments civil, brief and on topic, the discussion you linked to ended soon after you accused other editors of socking. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not even a vague description it clearly states: ''to control the Shabelle valley Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest  Which is what the Ajuuran map actually shows.


 * Or did that escape you in the selective reading of the source? What points are there to define? when the source clearly state it.


 * Same goes for the Geledi Controlled territories. The 1st source says The Geledi Sultans were at the head of a loose confederation of clans that occupied roughly the territory included in the triangle Brava - Baidoa - Mogadishu and they extended their influence also to the coastal towns


 * And the 2nd one says: The sultan of Geledi headed an alliance of clans that extended north to Baydhabo and southeast along the coast to Baraawe.


 * So yeah not exactly Vague at all and fits what the map potrays from the whole of lower shabelle valley to Baydhabo on the north and southeast along the coast of Barawa. And furthermore the description states it's the approximate extension and like i explained before this is all relevant to include maps for the purpose of giving the pages a descriptive overview. I didn't accuse other editors of socking,  baseless accusation ur making to deflect things.


 * It's also interesting how you don't seem to contest or remove the Northern Sultanates of Awdal and Ifat maps on these same grounds when u edit those pages regularly. But seem to have a particular interest in removing the maps of Southern/Central states, ur not enquiring about the sources or even looking for them to to progress these pages. Why is that? Ragnimo (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your sourced statements are both vague and imprecise to support the maps you wish to include. Besides, both maps extend well beyond the few points quoted from the sources you are citing. As an example, the source you cite describes the "the territory included in the triangle Brava - Baidoa - Mogadishu", and yet the map extends beyond Kismayo in the south and does not even include Mogadishu. Similarly, the Ajuraan source you cite names Qallafo and Mareeg, and yet the map extends from Hobyo to Kismayo, exceeding the territory the source you cite describes. You are attempting to retroactively ascribe original research maps to sources that do not support them. You may include text descriptions in the body of the article, provided reliable sources are added, but original research content has no place in the article. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The last source says it from Upper jubba/lower shabelle to Baidoa in the north and along the Barawa coast. The points of influence at Merka and Mogadisu are noted in the Geledi map as well.


 * As for the Ajuuran map Mareeg is neighboring Hobyo and as Lee Casaneeli etc notes it as an outpost of Ajuran. It extends to Kismayo because its at Kenyan Frontier in the south as the source says and like the map shows it also extends to Qallafo.


 * Btw :: i believe we should also add this in addition to the Historical Dictionary source. Lee casanelli also clearly states it on this page and aslo maybe this source as well


 * And Also answer what i said last or else i will continue to press you on it and i will get :: to also hold you to it. Why don't you apply the same standards u created to Ifat and Adal sultunate maps?  and contest/remove them on the same grounds? Are they not Original research to you? Why this selectivity? And why do you show lack of interest not only at that but also asking for sources and progessing the project related Southern/Central states?.  You are more in the interested of dancing around semantics to have them removed like the above show response shows Ragnimo (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been asked multiple times to be brief and keep your comments on topic. The maps still extend beyond the points described in your source. At this stage its clear you are picking and choosing from a wide range of sources to put forward an original synthesis that is not supported by any single source. This is textbook original research. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This response is basically you trying to silence me. What i said is very much within the topic. The sources all collaborate into one thing the maps. And i explained them. It's not picking and chosing. When i brought them up proposing that we should refrence them together. It was asked to provide reliable sources and i provided several substaniating eachother. But two of them already describes the maps.


 * Also nice try at getting away from what i raised about your suspicious selectiveness. Its reasonable to suspect that you are removing them under a bias or a motive, because you fail to attempt to do so to the maps for the Northern states like Ifat and Adal and fail to explain why when i asked. Nor do you even answer why you remove the Southern/Central states maps without  asking for sources or explanation,  or looking for them to progess the projects and i will keep bringing it up and i hope moderators like :: takes notice of this Ragnimo (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are attempting synthesis from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not mentioned by any single source, and even then, the maps extend well beyond what is described in the citations you have provided. Per guidelines: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here". --Kzl55 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you list all of the exact quotes (and exact sources) that the map is based on? For example: That would make it a lot easier to follow along and verify. Thanks! By the way, I'm not a moderator, I am just an uninvolved editor. There are no formal moderators here. It would also help if we just focus purely on the map and its sources rather than editors' motives. — MarkH21talk 23:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Something about something from page __ of
 * Something else about something else from (other source)

@Kz155 All three of those sources on Ajuuran pretty much say the same thing so it's not even a synthesis. But one of them should suffice


 * I just assumed you were because this is the noticeboard. I mentioned his possible bias or motives because i wanted a neutral editor to step in and make judge about the matter itself. Because he is absoulutely not neutral in this matter as i explained.


 * (Ajuuran map) Qoutes and Sources


 * From Lee Cassaneli Page 90 : Once established in the southern plains, however , the Ajuraan are said to have ruled the country from Qallaafo , on the upper Shabeelle River , to the shores of the Indian Ocean ; and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Jubba....


 * From Ali Mukhtar page 35: An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia


 * From Abdullahi, Abdurahman Page 59: Its territory extended from Mareeg in the Norther, (Elder district in Galmudug State of Somali); to Qallafo in the west to Kismayo in the south


 * Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the maps exceed the points referenced in the citations. Your sources name Qallafo and Mareeg, and yet the map extends from Hobyo (north of Mareeg ), to Kismayo (unnamed in the citations). With regards to the quotes, the Ajuraan citation references: from Qallaafo (a specific point), to the shores of the Indian Ocean (unspecified point, where on the shores of the Indian Ocean?), and from Mareeg (a specific point) to the Jubba (another unspecified point). The choices of where to place these unspecified points as well as all the other areas included in the map and not named in the citations, is original research on part of the map's creator. Also, your 3rd citation is directly quoting Wikipedia (p.60 ), this would go against verifiability guidelines as it amounts to circular referencing.
 * Lastly, discussing motives and making baseless accusations, which you have been doing across multiple discussions and against multiple editors, is neither assuming of good faith nor civil. And as you have seen, it gets you no where on Wikipedia. Best to stick to topics being discussed. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are indeed specific parts of the map that are not directly supported by the references, then that is certainly an original research & verifiability issue. — MarkH21talk 10:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Kzl55, I have been following the discussion, since the Ajuran Empire covers my area of interests. I have to say it looks like you're moving the goal-post, from OR to now circular referencing. Page 60, that you yourself highlighted above, clearly shows a map of the Ajuran Empire, in an author's book about that specific historic state. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a reason, countless authors and journals have used information about historic states from both primary sources or from articles on Wikipedia. Circular referencing would be to take a claim made in one Wikipedia article and use it as evidence in another Wikipedia article. That's not the case here, we have a scholar signed with a peer-reviewed Publishing house using a clearly defined map to outlay an historic state in his book. For Ragnimo to then use that scholar as a reference does not make it OR or circular referencing, because the map is clearly there in the book. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are confusing a few issues. Use of publications that rely on material from Wikipedia is prohibited and goes against verifiability guidelines. Its that simple. This is a rather straightforward matter, there is no need for rhetoric. Are the maps supported by reliable sources? The answer is simply no, for reasons explained above. There is no place for synthesis and original research in an encyclopaedic article, and as stated numerous times previously, you can always add the text, with reliable references, until such time that better sources are available. There is no requirement for articles to include maps when reliable sources are lacking. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Its confusing because this is a question of verifiability, while we are on a noticeboard about original research. Best course of action is for either you or Ragnimo to start a new section on the Reliable sources noticeboard, select a specific source as a candidate(for example Cassanelli), and have it either accepted or rejected (very unlikely considering their from peer-reviewed Publishing houses) by the board as a source for a new map on the Ajuran Empire. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the original research noticeboard is the appropriate place for discussing original research files. Please stay on topic. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples
I've become of the opinion that most examples of phenomenon in articles, that are not directly taken from reliable sources, are OR and should be removed. Has there been discussion of this and what are some takes on it? (I tried searching the archives but a search for "examples" brings up too many irrelevant hits to go through. Primergrey (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Improper map/caption synthesis
I believe that this edit constitutes an improper synthesis. The map dates to 1855 and depicts the contemporary situation in the Caucasus. Strabo and Zonaras who wrote about the Geli people 2000 years ago are absolutely irrelevant. This map cannot illustrate their writings. I've attempted to discuss this issue here but it clearly goes nowhere. Would be happy to hear outside feedback. Thanks, Alaexis¿question? 20:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Zeila
An editor seems to be adding original research, would editors take a look at this Magherbin (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Explain how it's orignal research. We agreed upon these changes in the Talk:Zeila page a month ago. I included it and that was it. Now you come back alleging something different several weeks after with no explanation? Why? Are you trolling me?

Zeia being traditional territory of Somali Dir clans and governed by them is attested to by the sources included for them:

Elisée Reclus (1886) describes the two main ancient routes leading from Harar to Zeila, one route passing through the country of the Gadabuursi and one route passing through Issa territory. The author describes the town of Zeila and its immediate environs as being inhabited by the Gadabuursi, whereas the wider Zeila District and countryside south of the town, as being traditional Issa clan territory:

"Two routes, often blocked by the inroads of plundering hordes, lead from Harrar to Zeila. One crosses a ridge to the north of the town, thence redescending into the basin of the Awash by the Galdessa Pass and valley, and from this point running towards the sea through Issa territory, which is crossed by a chain of trachytic rocks trending southwards. The other and more direct but more rugged route ascends north-eastwards towards the Darmi Pass, crossing the country of the Gadibursis or Gudabursis. The town of Zeila lies south of a small archipelago of islets and reefs on a point of the coast where it is hemmed in by the Gadibursi tribe. It has two ports, one frequented by boats but impracticable for ships, whilst the other, not far south of the town, although very narrow, is from 26 to 33 feet deep, and affords safe shelter to large craft

On the other side of the Gulf, Britain also had treaties of protection with the Somali Issa clan , whose traditional home was at Zeila , some forty miles south - east of Djibouti in what is now the Somali Republic 

"Three distinct circles can be distinguished based on the way the security arena  is composed in andaround Zeila: first, Zeila town, the administrative centre, which is home to many government institutions and where the mostly ethnic Gadabuursi/Samaron inhabitants engage in trading or government service activities; second, Tokhoshi, an artisanal salt mining area eight kilometres west of Zeila, where a mixture of clan and state institutions provide security and two large ethnic groups (Ciise and Gadabuursi/Samaron) live alongside one another; third the southern rural areas, which are almost universally inhabited by the Ciise clan, with its long, rigid culture of self-rule." 

UN (1999) Somaliland: Update to SML26165.E of 14 February 1997 '''on the situation in Zeila, including who is controlling it, whether there is fighting in the area, and whether refugees are returning. "The Gadabuursi clan dominates Awdal region. As a result, regional politics in Awdal is almost synonymous with Gadabuursi internal clan affairs."''' p. 5.

Regards Ragnimo (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Which source claim an "ancient" tribe named Dir "own" the city. How much did they purchase it for? As I said on the talk page, you need to provide reliable sources. Seeing you have now added a new source that corroborates with some parts of your edit, the line should go as following "Zeila is traditionally inhabited by the Gadabursi, Samaron and Issa sub clans of the Dir Somali". The sources dont indicate that they're ancient owners of the town. Magherbin (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Zeila is traditionally territory of the ancient Somali Dir clan and currently adminstrated by the Gadabursi we can change it into this for neutrality. It really makes no difference in my opinion.

Dir is an ancient tribe, and considered the oldest clan and they were rulers of the city since the time of Ifat/Awdal. An this is sourced on the page from a historical manuscript that documents their chronicle on Zeila:

I. M. Lewis gives an invaluable reference to an Arabic manuscript on the history of the Gadabursi Somali, who , together with the Isa , form the largest group of the ancient Dir clan - family . “ This Chronicle opens ' , Lewis tells us with an account of the wars of Imam Ali'Si'id(1392) from whome the Gadabursi today trace their descent, and who is described as the the only Muslim leader fighting on the wesern falnk in the armies of Se'ad ad-din, ruler of Zeila.

Ragnimo (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Remember to include references so you wont be flagged for original research and to exclude statements not provided in any source. Magherbin (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Repressed memories
Everything I wrote was substantiated by the article from MedHealthDaily.com. There are many many other articles and publications that firmly, and are from emperically based studies. The ENTRY is OUTDATED. So INACCURATE. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/ ...Oct 2019
 * 1) Forget Me Not: The Persistent Myth of Repressed Memories ...

beatingtrauma.com/2019/02/27/three-myths-about... There is no such thing as repressed memories, so any recovered memories must be false. This is the most blatant myth. And it goes against everything we currently understand about trauma and dissociation. If a repressed memory is wrong, it could get the victim in big trouble. This myth is based on the threats so many of us received as children. As a young child, I was already aware of False Memory Syndrome and defamation of character. People who are recovering memories are looking for attention. This myth often started with the invalidation from our childhood too. We learned that the truth was attention seeking so we needed to follow the script and protect the mask.
 * 1) Three Myths about Repressed Memories - Beating Trauma


 * 1) §The repressed memory concept came into wider public awareness in the 1980s and 1990s followed by a reduction of public attention after a series of scandals, lawsuits, and license revocations. A U.S. District Court accepted repressed memories as admissible evidence in a specific cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RespressedMemory (talk • contribs) 14:48, December 13, 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, you need to tell us what article you're talking about. Second, don't all caps, it's like shouting. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is much more helpful to use short, descriptive section titles, not an argument. The only thing I can find that you have edited is your sandbox which is not the type of material allowed on Wikipedia.  Specifically, Wikipedia is not for personal survivor stories nor is it for advocacy of causes.  If you want to make suggestions to how the Repressed memory article is written, then please click >>this link here<< and express in concise terms what you think is incorrect and what you think the correct text should be.  Remember to present sources that back up your preferred text.  I hope that helps. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Regensburg lecture
Requesting attention @ Talk:Regensburg lecture

Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage
Hello. I suspect that there is some OR, and possibly synthesis, in Irreversible Damage. Particularly, there seems to be OR in the last sentence in the lead section, which is also repeated in the summary section: "The book has been controversial for its views on transgender identity and its support of the unproven hypothesis of rapid onset gender dysphoria."

The two sources for this statement include:
 * 
 * 

The sources don't seem to be directly evaluating the book. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Drawing "obvious" conclusions which are simply not in the source

 * Hello, I am interested in an opinion/advice in order to check if I'm seeing this wrong: the article is Anti-Albanian sentiment and the source used/matter of dispute is
 * Nowhere in the source is there a reference about anti-Albanian sentiment, only raw data is presented. The article by Politika gives % of people from one ethnic group which are not willing to live with members of other neighbouring ethnic groups. This is the TP section I've started where.  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  20:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has discrimination and prejudice as its topic, inclusion of data from it in this article is clearly justified. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Our policy is that we must be extremely careful when using raw data. We can not create any conclusionary statements based on that data unless the source EXPLICITLY states that same conclusion.  Does the source you wish to use do this? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @BlueboarIf you read the whole thing, the topic of the article is antipathy to various ethnic groups in Serbia. The term "antisemitism" is used frequently, but the word "distance" is used for all other ethnic groups. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The source translated into English using Google translate says the polling is evidence of "ethnic distance towards Albanians." I imagine that means anti-Albanian sentiment. TFD (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a tricky stretch that I think does run afoul of OR - I wouldn't consider "not tolerating living among X" to being equal to "anti-X" which implies full non-tolerance, though still implies some racial inequity. I think stating the data from the source gives sufficient inference to that for the topic at hand, but Wikivoice can't make the logical jump to say that. It's not a "obvious" conclusion here for all purposes. --M asem  (t) 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @M asem The definition of "ethnic distance" in the article is ""In this research, ethnic distance is defined as the tendency for other nations to be presented as a potential danger and obstacle, someone to whom it is best to be careful and restrained.". The term used instead of "ethnic distance towards jews" is "anti-semitism". This justifies "anti-Albanian sentiment. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "ethnic distance" means just that they don't want to live among Albanians. It means that they don't like Albanians, which is the reason they don't want to live among them. It would be helpful if someone who speaks Serbian could explain what the term means. TFD (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is not explicitly stating the same conclusion.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There aren't any conclusions that have been inferred from the poll. Sadko's question relates to whether is relevant to the article Anti-Albanian sentiment. I consider its relevancy obvious. The specific mention of one of wikipedia's descriptive titles - in this case, "Anti-Albanian sentiment" - doesn't define the scope of a subject. It's obvious that the scope of the subject includes the quantitative aspects of prejudice and discrimination towards a social group.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is only raw data presented in the article and 0% is "obvious", as I have stated before. No context is given. If anybody needs help with additional translation of the article, I can land a hand. cheers,  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article says: "In this research, ethnic distance is defined as the tendency for other nations to be presented as a potential danger and obstacle, someone to whom it is best to be careful and restrained. The results showed that there is still the greatest ethnic distance towards Albanians, which 40 percent of respondents are reluctant to see as citizens of Serbia, and as many as 70 percent would refuse to marry them." This is, to my mind, more than enough to justify the term "anti-Albanian sentiment", there is no requirement for a source to use the exact phrase which appears in the title of the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I do not speak Serbian. This is based on me translating the original article. But I have done so in three languages to confirm the meaning. As a matter of principle, I do agree that taking raw data presented in a certain context, and inserting it in a completely different context is questionable. However, in this particular case, the data is not taken out of context, because the article is about discrimination and prejudice. The editor also guaranteed WP:NPOV by removing the that is present in the sentence of the article.--JBchrch (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a little unclear as to what we are referring to when we say “the article” (WP article vs Source article)... so let me ask in a different way: is the data being cited “about” discrimination and prejudice? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was indeed unclear : I was referring the source article. I believe that the data cited is about discrimination and prejudice, that it was not taken out of context and thus that it is not original research.--JBchrch (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it OR to quote an OSHA report about the death of an employee on the owner of the company who also designed the device that killed?
I have opened a RfC for Talk:Donald_Gary_Young#RfC: worker killed by pressure device designed by Young. We have both a source that quotes the report and the report itself both of which say: “The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels." Thanks for any help you can give. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does a source exist for the specific proposition that the pressure device was itself, in fact, designed by Young? I feel like this discussion has been had four or five times, and every time there turns out to be no source making this more specific claim. BD2412  T 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I bring the topic up here on this forum. You are essentially saying that unless I can do my own original research, to fact check the quote, to your unusually high evidentiary standard, we can't include a quote with WP:RS and Notability. He is dead so WP:BLP doesn't require us to not mention something he was accused of. The burden is not on me to create the connection. The quote is the quote made by an OSHA inspector and published in WP:RS. But if you really want me to connect dots I can. One of Young's claims to notability is that he designed innovative distillation techniques. It's all over his promotional material, including photos of him with distillers he made. For instance: "Gary's first distillation experiment was welding two pressure cookers together and placing it on top of the kitchen stove." But again, we don't need to clear this hurdle that you have set up. We can just quote the OSHA inspector and leave it at that. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My request for a source stating the asserted proposition can not reasonably be read as a request that you engage in the above exercise in WP:SYNTH. To be very, very clear, for an assertion that a BLP subject directly caused the death of another person, you can not "connect dots" and draw your own inferences. You can't say that one source indicating that the subject designed a device in 1991 means that he was the designer of a different device in 2000. In fact, the OSHA report that you cite states at pages 13-14 (pages 47-48 of the PDF) that "Todd Rindlisbaker P.E., WHW Engineering, Inc. ... designed the pressure relief system to be installed on each of the vessels". The source you cite literally contradicts the conclusion that you are attempting to imply. BD2412  T 15:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At no time have I suggested we say that Young directly caused anybody's death. I am trying to include the quote from the Skeptical Inquirer which is itself a quote from the OSHA report. You are going back to the OSHA report to fact check the Skeptical Inquirer that quotes the OSHA report. That seems to me like OR. And the OSHA report does indeed include the above quote. It's on page 47 of the PDF of the OSHA report and is exactly as it appears in the Skeptical Inquirer article minus the expansion of the acronym. But again, I'm not suggesting that I have the authority to interpret the OSHA document, nor should any wikipedia editor. We are in the reliable source and notability business, not the going back to the PDF and scanning the document business. As to my "connecting the dots" above. That goes to notability. Young is notable for building a business based on distilling essential oils. One such distiller killed a man. There is a WP:RS that raises the possibility that the distiller was of his design. And even if it wasn't directly of his design, the fact that a worker was killed by a distiller is notable in and of itself. Young has himself died. We have no reason not to include the quote, unless we raise the evidentiary burden to the level that you suggest. I think your bar is raised to a level that violates policy. Why? Because if we generalize your rule, we would be required to always do OR on all BLP pages. Suppose there's a WP:RS that says x? Well we better go back to primary sources to see if x is true. Suddenly we aren't editors of an encyclopedia, we are investigative journalists or forensic reporters. This would be a systemic problem, and should be of concern to all editors who care about the OR policy. I'd love to hear from some other editors about this. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, BLP expressly does not automatically cut off when an article subject dies, because it applies to their surviving family members who may be affected by a claim made against the person. You state that a source "raises the possibility that the distiller was of his design", but the source does not say this; you are merely interpreting it as such. You state in the header of this section that the "owner of the company... also designed the device that killed". Not only is this not stated in the referenced published source, it is contradicted by the OSHA report that you brought up in the first place. At this point, the header definitively makes a demonstrably false statement, and I am left wondering why you would want to introduce a factually incorrect inference to an article. BD2412  T 03:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A few points. 1. The policy against original research regards publishing original research in an article. There is no prohibition against conducting anything that may be considered original research during the discussion process, as a way of deciding whether a source is reliable. I am not saying that anyone has conducted original research, but rather, that even bringing up this argument is irrelevant if no one is proposing adding that research to mainspace. 2. It would be best not to make rigid assumptions of the meanings of phrases used in any source, such as "design". To say that Young designed the whole operation does not necessarily mean that he designed each and every individual component. In fact that could be a reasonable way for a source to describe that Young conceived the overall layout of the operation but still had to hire an engineer to figure out the details. And we know that he hired an engineer. 3. Rigid adherence to mimicking what one believes is said by what one believes is a reliable source is neither wise nor possible. If the designation of a source as reliable were thereafter sacrosanct, Wikipedia would be filled with unnecessary errors. Sources make mistakes, and sometimes sources are misleading, and sometimes there is nothing wrong with the source at all, but an editor insists on drawing inferences from the text that are not present in the original. There is nothing inappropriate about reviewing primary sources for clarification that the secondary source has left murky. Further, and this is kind of really important and painfully obvious, while we trust secondary sources over primary sources for interpretation and analysis, a secondary source cannot be trusted over a primary source about the literal content of that primary source. If a secondary source says, "according to primary source, X", but the primary source clearly says, "not X", the policy-compliant resolution is simply to decide the secondary source isn't reliable on that point. This isn't hard. But that's not even necessary here. The secondary source states that Young designed something in 1985. And that in 2000 an operation he designed killed someone. It never explicitly states that Young literally designed and built the killer device himself. I'm sure a wording can be found that can describe this event and Young's involvement without turning him into an engineer/machinist. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like we should have something somewhere that codifies your third point, If a secondary source says, "according to primary source, X", but the primary source clearly says, "not X", the policy-compliant resolution is simply to decide the secondary source isn't reliable on that point. Do we not have anything like that? BD2412  T 04:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Someguy. I stand corrected that OR can be done to check on reliability. It's right there at the top of the OR page so I'm chagrinned. I still worry that down this path lies madness, or at least us becoming more like Snopes than wikipedia. However, in this particular case, the quote is correct. It occurs in the primary source exactly as in the secondary. BD2412 is mistaken that the additional quote he found exonerates Young, because the engineer who is mentioned made modifications to the devices after the accident. We would be doing SYNTH to assume that he designed the devices before the accident. The thing you say that is most exciting to me is "I'm sure a wording can be found that can describe this event and Young's involvement without turning him into an engineer/machinist." Thus far, BD2412 and others are refusing to let the event be mentioned at all. Given that Young built his notability on these devices, whether or not he specifically designed this particular one, it's an important moment in his life that should be on the page. If you have the time to stop by and help us find that wording, or nudged us to find it, I'd be grateful. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just say "it's an important moment in his life" based on your opinion. Is there a source that describes this as having any impact on the subject's life whatsoever? The OSHA report indicates that the multi-million dollar company under investigation was fined ten thousand dollars, but offers no hint of any significance to the individual subject's life. However, the incident is described on the page for the company, which is appropriate. As for the engineer, if we had an article on that person, I would also oppose mention of the incident in that article based on the ambiguity of the report, and the absence of a source describing any impact on the engineer's life. BD2412  T 05:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Serbia in the Middle Ages
'''Frankish Chronicle of Fredegar mentions Dervan, chieftain of the Serbs, in c. 631, who may be the first Serb mentioned by name in history. Dervan is considered to be the father or, more likely, brother of the nameless prince who led the White Serbs into the Balkans.'''
 * This is information based on two sources. Curta in the source speak about Sorbs. As for Živković source I can't WP:VERIFY. I looked for other sources of Živković and I can't find this information "Fredegar mentions Dervan, chieftain of the Serbs" in context of Balkan Serbs. Explaned on talk page. Is this information in context of Balkan Serbs original research. Thanks? Mikola22 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina
'''After the fall, Serbs were subjected to various persecutions, war crimes, oppression and genocide at the hands of Muslims, including the infamous Devsirme system of forced assimilation, various Sharia inequalities, including forced labor, jizya, harsh taxation and slavery. Although their percentage in the overall population decreased, Orthodox Serbs managed to stay a relative majority in their land, and constitute a territorial majority within the territory of contemporary Bosnia, as Orthodox Serbs were traditionally a rural population within Bosnia, while Muslims were more often an urban populace, due to their services as city guards and traders.'''


 * This information is from Ottoman rule section. First we have no sources which confirm this information. Second, here are mentioned "war crimes" and "genocide" at the hands of Muslims ie Bosniaks. Also this information is in context of 15th century and here we have Orthodox Serbs fact, but reading Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina there are only Catholics until the 19th century and not Catholic Croats fact. I wonder if this information all together is original research? "War crimes" and "genocide" of Bosnians against Bosnian Serbs fact in my opinion is possible and fringe information because I have never heard or read anything about that. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's completely unsourced, mate. You can just change it to whatever RS says about the treatment of Serbs under Turkish rule in the Middle Ages. Find yourself a decent neutral history book or two, and off you go. I would say that you will find evidence of persecution, some of it lethal, and that shouldn't be skipped over, but the picture will be more nuanced than that paragraph. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could probably find evidence for persecution of Serbs in that period but I wonder what to do with the rest information in the article? Whether it can be deleted because it is OR, in some parts posible and fringe? What is done in such cases? Or now I have to look for sources to correct this information? Also I do not know that I will find information obouth Bosnian Serbs in the context of the 15th century, possible in Serbian sources, but I don't know how neutral those sources are. Mikola22 (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about it myself, I've vaguely read something about an early modern massacre of monks in Croatia in a RS, so I assume bad things happened in Serbia. I would look for an English language history of Serbia, and try from there. There will be bias in anything, but if you are not an expert in evaluating contentious sources, a source from an uninvolved country will tend to be better. The details of religious inequality under the Ottomans might be better displayed as part of a "society" section? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is article obout Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina not Serbia. Here we have even less sources which mentioning Serbs in context of 15th century. I as editor would delete this information but other editors would keep this information. So it's not very clear situation to me. That's why I ask the wider community what is being done in such cases because there are many such situations. I’m not going to touch this information and that’s it. She is exposed on talk page so that other editors know about that. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should say a history of Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia or the Balkans. A history of Serbia may also be relevant in some cases, though. If you don't want to touch it, it is going to stay how it is I'm afraid. It's probably biased framing, but unless there were no Serbs in Bosnia at the time (I literally know this little about the subject) then the information may well be relevant the article. Certainly you should tag citation needed all over that paragraph if it is unsourced.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In Praise of Blood: Is it SYNTH to say a book describes two events as "comparable in scale and cruelty" when book never does this?
Requesting advice from experienced editors about using this sentence in an article about a controversial book: "The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi."

You can see a debate about this sentence between me and on the book's talk page.

To summarize my opinion, this sentence is WP:SYNTH because:
 * 1) The book never unites the two concepts of "scale and cruelty" and
 * 2) The book never compares the scale of the two events.
 * 3) Analyzing the 3 RS cited for this statement: first is a rough estimate of numbers killed by the RPF in 1994-1996, but makes no mention of cruelty and makes no comparison to the number of Tutsis killed during the three months of the Tutsi genocide; second compares cruelty by two groups of civilians; and the third is an extended description of killings by RPF but draws no equivalence to genocide against Tutsi. So those 3 RS don't support the claim in the sentence.

Saflieni's opinion (just quoting from the talk page, although I hope he will speak for himself as well):
 * 1) in the RFI interview, Rever claims that the alleged RPF crimes against Hutus are also genocide and she gives a rough estimate of its scale: half a million. This is more or less comparable to the scale of the Tutsi genocide, whether she uses the word "comparable" or not.
 * 2) The appeals to WP:SYNTH and original research are not relevant here. As I've just explained: I've summarized a main theme of the book in a few words. The job of an editor, according to WP:NPOV is to "convey to the reader the information contained in them [the sources] fairly".

I don't consider the sentence to be a fair summary, because it implies something inflammatory but untrue about the book.

It is already controversial that Rever describes RPF killings of Hutus as also a genocide. We should not imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that she uses this claim to minimize the 1994 genocide against Tutsis. On the contrary, Rever says (pp 229-230), "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide...between half a million and a million Tutsis were slaughtered in a period of three months—an unfathomable number...Their individual and collective suffering will never be forgotten."

Sorry if this is long, it is late at night when I write this. Please share your own thoughts. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Response by Saflieni:
 * I'm going to be very lengthy too and use quotes to make my point because this issue keeps coming back and I want the facts to be clear once and for all. The sentence fairly represents the book's content and complies with WP:NPOV: ... carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. HouseOfChange mentions three sources but there are in fact many other examples, in the book and in RS, provided by the author herself and by scholars.
 * In this interview on CBC, presenter Carol Off and Judi Rever are clearly discussing Rever's double genocide theory in terms of equivalency.
 * Judi Rever: ...at the same time that ethnic Tutsis were being killed in Hutu-controlled zones, his Tutsi troops were killing with equal zeal and organization. And in every zone that the Rwandan Patriotic Front and its army entered, they killed massively and in an organized way.
 * Carol Off: And the record is that Hutu Power militias — the Interahamwe as it was called — massacred Tutsis in the numbers of somewhere between 500,000 and a million. What numbers are you saying that the Tutsis kill of Hutus?
 * Judi Rever: Several hundred thousand anyhow. I've spoken to a lot of people, and many of them have said that there are at least 500,000 Hutus who were killed by Kagame’s troops during the genocide and in the months after the genocide. Now, some people have said that figure could be as high as a million. It's very difficult to know in Kagame’s Rwanda without doing studies and investigations of the numbers. But clearly, it's a massive number of people who were targeted.
 * Carol Off: But you're saying you believe you have evidence that shows equivalency — that equal genocides were committed on both sides. Even though ... only the genocide against the Tutsis has been documented... You're saying there is an equivalent genocide that occurred that was absolutely not documented in any way, because your version does not appear in any other books?
 * Judi Rever: No, it doesn't. And this is a real problem that the killing was not investigated — the killing in RPF-controlled zones was not investigated.
 * In the book's final chapter, Rever gives estimates of both the genocide against the Tutsi: between half a million and a million Tutsis were slaughtered in a period of three months (p. 227), and the alleged genocide against the Hutu: The RPF's victims are estimated to have been between several hundred thousand and a million human beings. (p. 232)
 * Some specific examples of equivalency from Rever's book (emphases added):
 * In areas seized by the RPF or already under its control, its soldiers and intelligence agents worked with similar ethnic zeal, but they were more discreet (p. 3)
 * Human Rights Watch clearly-and rightfully-found that Hutu militia, military and government officials targeted and exterminated Tutsis and, in some cases, Hutus opposed to their genocidal plan. But it appeared not to have discovered a similar ethnic dynamic in zones controlled by the RPF. (p. 99)
 * But a growing body of evidence now shows that Tutsi civilians betrayed and killed their Hutu neighbors in the same way that Hutus turned on Tutsis. The dynamic at work was chillingly similar. (p. 106)
 * These Tutsis-both abakada and civilians loyal to the RPF government and army-committed unspeakable atrocities against Hutus, crimes comparable to those committed by Hutu civilians and lnterahamwe. (p. 107)
 * After the genocide, Father Simard was appalled to discover that the RPF was committing similar atrocities against Hutus in Butare, and started to make tape recordings of his observations. (p. 149)
 * Despite the claim by Western human rights organizations and media that there can be no moral equivalence between the two sides, Hutus in RPF-controlled areas faced similar risks of annihilation as Tutsis did in Hutu-controlled areas. (pp. 228, 229)
 * That the Hutus "deserved to be massacred" is pure Tutsi hard-line dogma. And Hutu hard-liners employed a similar ideology against Tutsis. Hutu extremists called killing Tutsi civilians "work." It is the same word Tutsi extremists used to describe exterminating Hutus. (p. 230)
 * Some examples of scholars commenting:
 * Filip Reyntjens: The cruelty shown is almost unbearable for the reader and reminds us of the way the Tutsis were killed. The method is striking: similar mechanisms keep recurring. (My translation)
 * Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen: Rever claimed RPF killings amounted to genocide against the Hutu on an equal scale to the genocide against the Tutsi, in terms of death tolls and cruelty against civilians. (This source was already referenced in the article and this sentence is actually what I paraphrase).
 * Gerald Caplan challenges Rever's claim: I happen to know many of them [foreigners who witnessed the genocide] ... and not one of them has ever implied that the sins of the RPF were on a scale comparable to the genocide, which they all witnessed from inside.
 * Rever also uses the word cruelty in relation to the alleged RPF crimes while she was writing the book: If the 1994 genocide against Tutsis stands as the most depraved and tragic chapter in Rwanda’s history, its corollary is certainly the three years that followed in which a slower, largely hidden campaign of abject cruelty was meted out against Hutu civilians in Rwanda and the DRC, with barely a whimper of international outcry.
 * Rever also uses the word cruelty in relation to the alleged RPF crimes while she was writing the book: If the 1994 genocide against Tutsis stands as the most depraved and tragic chapter in Rwanda’s history, its corollary is certainly the three years that followed in which a slower, largely hidden campaign of abject cruelty was meted out against Hutu civilians in Rwanda and the DRC, with barely a whimper of international outcry.


 * I could go on like this, but I believe that these examples prove that I summed it up fairly and accurately in the brief description taken from my draft. Saflieni (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. Just two points:
 * We are discussing the scale of two events--scale relates to proportion, not just to number. Two events may affect similar numbers of people but be very different in scale.
 * Tutsis are a small minority of the Rwanda population, about 15%. 70% of the Tutsi population died in the genocide. If a million Tutsis died in the genocide, then the RPF would have to kill 5 or 6 million Hutus to create a genocide of similar scale. This is probably why you never see the book say there were two events of similar scale.
 * The rate of killing is another large difference of scale. As Rever says, ..between half a million and a million Tutsis were slaughtered in a period of three months—an unfathomable number. When she estimates elsewhere the number of Hutus killed by the RPF, she is talking about killings over a period of two or three years. Again, these are two events on different scales.
 * Hintjens and vanOijen are mistaken to say that Rever claimed RPF killings amounted to genocide against the Hutu on an equal scale to the genocide against the Tutsi. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. WP:VERIFYOR If HoC has a novel theory and believes that it challenges the views expressed by the subject matter experts and the author of the book, they might consider writing a paper about it and submit it to a relevant academic journal. In the meantime they should allow others to answer the question they posted.Saflieni (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a clearer way for me to express the opinion that offends you: the Tutsi genocide and the alleged Hutu genocide were events of vastly different scale. That's my opinion, and, as you rightly say, my opinion doesn't matter to what the article says. IPOB never describes them, not even once, as events of "equal scale." That is a fact. Therefore if H and van O were writing in Wikipedia, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH would forbid them from making the claim, unsupportable by any text in IPOB, that IPOB describes the two events as "on an equal scale." That is also a fact. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not very helpful when an editor starts a discussion on this Noticeboard and is simultaneously reporting negatively about it at another Noticeboard. Saflieni (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I created this discussion to give you an opportunity to demonstrate collegial content-focused editing. If instead you choose to violate WP:CIVIL, that should be reported at the noticeboard now discussing your behavior. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're framing again, your favorite hobby. My comment was no different, except more appropriate, than what you and Buidhe have told me on the article's Talk page. The difference is that I don't rush to report others for minor issues or no issues at all on the Talk pages of administrators and on Noticeboards every day of the week, which I'm sure you'll do again now.Saflieni (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , I do not see the concepts of "scale" and "cruelty" in your citations, but the concepts of "way", "dynamic", "mechanism". I would suggest to write that The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi and to add in #Reception a passage describing Hintjens & van Oijen's review that could read Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen describe the book as claiming that "RPF killings amounted to genocide against the Hutu on an equal scale to the genocide against the Tutsi, in terms of death tolls and cruelty against civilians."--JBchrch (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JBchrch for your compromise suggestion. The concepts "scale" and "cruelty" are in the examples of secondary sources I mentioned: cruelty in Reyntjens and in Hintjens; scale in Caplan and in Hintjens. On CBC they spoke of "equal genocides" which covers all aspects and they specify the scale (in this context, "scale" usually if not always means "death toll"). I hope you'll agree that it's their interpretations, not my original research. In WP:NOR I read: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Unless I'm mistaken, the policy does not say: "Use the exact same phrases as the primary source." Saflieni (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , my personal interpretation of WP:NOR is that you should not add any information that is not explicitly stated in the source: you should just restate what the source says. And it is true that you are ever so slightly merging the wording of each source to arrive at your result (1.comparable 2. in scale and 3. cruelty, expressed together as one statement). However, here we are bordering on various WP:NOTSYNTH points, such as not a rigid rule and not summary. I truly think you and could work out a compromise, because it's just one problematic sentence, and no-one has criminally breached the policies.--JBchrch (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your time spent on this very much. If you are looking for a compromise solution, here is what I would consider a compromise that respects the spirit of WP:OR : "The book gives details of many RPF crimes against Hutu civilians, comparing their cruelty in some cases to that inflicted on Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide." That much is true, and reflects the book very well.

Concerning the numbers of victims killed, even the well-studied and mostly agreed on number for Tutsi deaths (500k - 1M) has a factor of two uncertainty. The number of Hutus killed by the RPF is not just disputed but closely concealed--one can only guess at those numbers. Rever reports a number of guesses from sources, with much less cause for trust and a bigger margin of error (200k - 1M). It would make little sense to compare "numbers of deaths" when both numbers are wildly uncertain, and the book does not, even once, compare them. Therefore, it is wrong for the article to say that Rever compares the numbers, because she does not compare the numbers--and even worse to say that she calls the "scale" "equal," which she never does. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * HouseOfChange even rejects the main theme of the book according to the majority view among scholars - double genocide - because the book doesn't use that exact phrase.Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be. . Remember that I paraphrased a peer reviewed journal article and that all reliable sources say more or less the same thing, including the author of the book, so I'm curious what exactly I'm supposed to have added. Saflieni (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss the content rather than other editors' alleged beliefs and behaviors, on this noticeboard at least. We are here to try to reach consensus concerning a disputed sentence. I have proposed a compromise, that you could describe a comparison of cruelty with my blessing. If you agree, we have consensus on that part of your sentence. As for the question of "scale," I disagree with 1) including it in the same sentence as "cruelty, 2) using the word "scale" if what you actually mean is "death toll", and 3) saying that Rever compares the scale or compares the death toll of two events, when she never compares them. Now I hope we can reach agreement with help from and possibly others at this page. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've asked you to stop framing. JBchrch was under the impression that this sentence is the only problem. If that were true we would have completed the article two months ago. Saflieni (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This one sentence is the problem we are asking people at this noticeboard to help us solve. I have proposed a compromise solution. I look forward to suggestions from you and from others how to proceed to reach consensus concerning the disputed sentence. Am I to understand that your proposal is to keep the exact wording of the sentence despite my objections to it, pulling a word here and a word there from multiple different sources, yet with no actual support from the text in the book, to say that "the book' describes" two events as "comparable in scale and cruelty"? Sorry, but that is SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." HouseOfChange (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * what is your proposal of a synthesis? Vikram Vincent 07:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Corrections:
 * 1) I never wrote: The book describes ..., but Rever qualifies ... HouseOfChange changed my original sentence:.
 * 2) I never wrote: ... on an equal scale, but ... comparable in scale. I did not follow Hintjens and van Oijen here, but Caplan who writes a scale comparable to.
 * 3) HoC says: using the word "scale" if what you actually mean is "death toll. "I" don't "mean" anything. Hintjens & v.Oijen write: on an equal scale ... in terms of death tolls and cruelty. Like I said, most if not all reliable sources refer to death tolls when they use "scale" in this context. Unless HoC can prove otherwise, it is what it is. WP:RS says: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Moreover, even Rever quotes in one of her articles: ... genocide against Hutus by the RPA whose methodology and scale, he concluded, (30,000 massacres)... - that number being the civilian death toll estimated by Robert Gersony. NB: I forgot this is in the book too, on p. 97.Saflieni (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) HoC says: saying that Rever compares the scale or compares the death toll of two events, when she never compares them.. I have provided evidence of scholars interpreting it that way. I have also provided evidence of Rever discussing equivalence of the genocide(s) in terms of death tolls and comparable or similar unspeakable atrocities. For a definition of equivalence, see: . For a definition of atrocity, see:.
 * 5) HoC says: ...pulling a word here and a word there from multiple different sources. Actually the reliable sources did that.
 * 6) HoC says: a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. As I've noted, the "source" does state that. Hoc keeps confusing the reliable secondary sources with the book which is a primary source. WP:RS says: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. And aside from being a primary source, the book was not vetted by the scholarly community. Quite the opposite. The fact that Amsterdam University Press published a translation may be confusing, but AUP is a commercial enterprise, independent from the University of Amsterdam. No vetting or fact checking was involved.
 * 7) HoC says: I don't consider the sentence to be a fair summary, because it implies something inflammatory but untrue about the book. And: We should not imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that she uses this claim to minimize the 1994 genocide against Tutsis. On the contrary, Rever says (pp 229-230) ... etc.. This is a) a misleading statement, because in that same chapter Rever shifts the responsibility for planning, igniting, fuelling, perpetuating (and even participating in) the genocide against the Tutsi to the RPF, and b) these conclusions are HoC's POV, not the majority view among RS.Saflieni (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * so the question to you would also be the same.. Taking into consideration the objections and your explanations of the objections what would your proposal be? Vikram Vincent 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

,, please WP:CALM down and let's try to solve this dispute amicably. There is ample room for compromise here: the relevant policies do not give a clear answer and it's probably somewhere in between both of your ideas. I agree with 's idea of you writing down your proposals below to see how we reach consensus.--JBchrch (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposals

 * Thank you both. I agreed with the compromise as proposed by JBchrch, but got the feeling we're not on the same wavelength. I would like to make one change though. Ascribing the assessment in the second sentence to Hintjens & v. Oijen would create the false impression that it's particular to them, while others have expressed the same or similar views. We could seperate "scale" and "cruelty" and reference the relevant sources to each concept. My proposal would therefore be something like: The book describes the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a genocide comparable to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. And add in #Reception: Several scholars describe the book as claiming that "RPF killings amounted to genocide against the Hutu on an equal scale to the genocide against the Tutsi, in terms of death tolls,[footnote] and cruelty against civilians.[footnote] After this is settled, I would like to invite scrutiny to the rest of the article as it is now. Saflieni (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)



First, a little background: "A relevant example is a book called In Praise of Blood, by Canadian journalist Judi Rever. 101 The book received quite a bit of media attention around the world, and was claimed to be an exposé of RPF atrocities. Rever claimed RPF killings amounted to genocide against the Hutu on an equal scale to the genocide against the Tutsi, in terms of death tolls and cruelty against civilians. Rever acknowledges the genocide against the Tutsi, but shifts the blame for this event to the RPF, using some familiar implicatory arguments. Her mantra is 'infiltration.' She repeats this term dozens of times, in order to drive home the idea, first suggested by the Rwandan ministry of defence in 1991, 102 that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization, even the Interahamwe militias. Allegedly, the RPF deliberately fuelled genocide in order to conquer Rwanda and come to power, instead of trying to stop the genocide as the RPF claims."
 * I'd like to quote the entire paragraph, with Saflieni's favored quote in context, so that you can see its focus on attacking Judi Rever, not on describing her book in scholarly terms:
 * In Praise of Blood is an article about a book, but H and van O is an article about genocide denial, with a section near the end making a case for calling Judi Rever a genocide denier, followed by a section criticizing the book's claim of body cremation at Akagera National Park. (This last part is relevant to the book and hence to the article. And the article already quotes three different statements from this section of H and van O, more material than from any other source cited in the article.)
 * If we are going to quote verbatim from peer-reviewed material, we should quote material that describes or criticizes the book IPOB, not material that attacks its author.
 * Judi Rever is a non-notable living person, and Wikipedia should be cautious about quoting authors, even expert authors, who transform their criticism of the book into attacks on Judi Rever for having written it.

Now, a proposal for material in the article:


 * I propose this sentence: "The book describes RPF crimes against Hutu civilians during the 1990s as a "genocide," which has been controversial, particularly with scholars who study the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi civilians." This sentence could introduce a paragraph of reasons scholars advance against the book's using the word "genocide."
 * A different sentence, on a different topic, could go in a different paragraph: ""The book gives details of many RPF crimes against Hutu civilians, comparing their cruelty to the atrocities suffered by Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide." Then give a footnote to H and Van O as well as relevant page numbers in IPOB.
 * A different sentence, on a different topic. "IPOB gives widely varying estimates for the number of Hutu civilians allegedly killed by the RPF in Rwanda. The lowest number Rever heard from her sources was a few hundred thousand, the highest, from just one person, was a million.(footnotes and page citations) The book's estimate for the number of Tutsis killed in the genocide is the official estimate: "between half a million and a million Tutsis were slaughtered in a period of three months—an unfathomable number."

Thank you for this opportunity to suggest a compromise that includes the material desired by Saflieni but does not create a SYNTH connection among its parts. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

,, I think 's proposal is adequate and complies with the policies.--JBchrch (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I appreciate the time you have spent on this. I am grateful that JBchrch agreed that the original form of the sentence, even though it was a close paraphrase of H and van O, was inappropriate SYNTH put into Wikivoice. As a slight amendment to what is suggesting, however, I prefer JBchrch's original proposal where H and van O are cited as the source for their direct quotation rather than confusingly ascribing it to "several scholars." HouseOfChange (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and, thank you for your assistance. Meanwhile the article has many other issues, most of which seem to stem from the assumption that scholars who critically analyze Rever's work are not just doing their job but are being hostile or even acting as proxies of the Rwandan government. How should I approach this? If I were to report each example separately we will be debating here till Christmas. Please advise. Saflieni (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this exercise just proved that by focusing on the content and not the editor it got done! I'm sure this spirit can continue post this as well. Best! Vikram Vincent 11:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vikram Vincent, but that's a two way street. HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. If there really is a spirit to cooperate they'd have dropped that case by now. Btw, if you wish to solve our personal little spat in a peaceful manner, you're welcome to discuss it on my Talk page. I would like to clear the air on that issue.Saflieni (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I (not Buidhe and I) filed this ANI, not because of one edit-warring episode but because of multiple BATTLEGROUND episodes, which I enumerated, with links, so that anybody could check my facts. The problem with this dispute, concerning this single sentence, was that you ignored explanations that your sentence violated SYNTH. On this NORN page, it took several days, hours of my time, and the help of two other editors to convince you of that fact. A normally collegial Wikipedia editor could have solved that problem on the article talk page instead of demanding that the exact wording of one disputed sentence MUST go into the article. It is stressful and time-wasting to work "with" an editor who behaves as you do, and I have no intention of withdrawing the ANI unless you stop creating new PAs such as the above: HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer but I'll pass. It is statements like these which tend to antagonise editors: HoC and Buidhe reported me on ANI over the very issue that we've just solved here, which they wrapped in a bundle of fake facts that nobody is going to verify. Vikram Vincent  17:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vikram Vincent, It is against Wikipedia policy to post falsehoods and insults about someone else, according to WP:IUC, not "antagonizing" to discuss them. Look at how our compromise is explained by HoC, here and on their ANI: The resolution at NORN was that the text he edit-warred to insert did violate WP:SYNTH, just as Buidhe and I multiply explained to him. I don't remember that the "resolution" reached states that I violated WP:SYNTH, do you? A fake fact. Also, they edit-warred to remove my contribution from the article, but claim that I edit-warred to "insert" it. Another falsehood. This is everyday reality. WP:AGF says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. Don't forget that you too have made accusations that are objectively false. Saflieni (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my observations I made then that you tend to bully editors by insulting them during discussions and then use the victim approach when cornered. It is unfortunate that you have not reflected upon your unhealthy approach. Over and out. Vikram Vincent 04:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vikram Vincent I've offered to clear the air on that issue. Facts are facts - I've just specified some of them. Last time on ANI I counted 103 falsehoods, not even counting you echoing a number of them. The current ANI is halfway there again already; I've just pointed out recent examples. The "victim approach"? That's calling me a liar again. Endorsing falsehoods and adding to the pile yourself is not helpful towards resolving the problem. Saflieni (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reports of case law
I'm a little puzzled on this, if a judgment is reported in a published volume of case law (in this case a selection of case reports from around the world), is using that judgment to support a factual statement OR? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific case is this one, would this be considered a secondary source supporting the statement "Argentina considers individuals born in the Falklands to be Argentine citizens." Or would using the report of the case in a journal of international law constitute OR? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the legal decision itself (whether the decision directly from the court that issued it or from a volume of collected decisions) to support that type of statement would be OR, though likely the sourcing to support it would be a law journal that reviews case law and which would mention the case directly. The case decision is a primary source and typically may not reflect the full implication of its decision in the practical application for the jurisdiction it covers, and thus where the OR comes in to use the case results directly like that. A law journal will be secondary and thus can make that assessment. --M asem (t) 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool I think I understand most of that. I'm not sure I understand this part though, "though likely the sourcing to support it would be a law journal that reviews case law and which would mention the case directly". The book cited is "Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 1935-1937", it provides a brief summary of the case, followed by what appears to be the translated text of the judgment. Are you saying that using the summary is OR as well, or just the judgment? I'm aware of the problem of the date btw, there are other sources, but I was wondering whether this could be included alongside them. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see enough of the text to be able to tell if that would be a secondary source as that description makes it sound more tertiary than secondary. But that would be better than using the case itself to support the claim as a starting point. --M asem (t) 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Hitler family
In a discussion on this page, an editor apparently doesn't understand what WP:OR and WP:RS mean.

The issue at hand is the birthdate of Otto Hitler, a sibling of Adolf Hitler who lived for only a few days after birth. Numerous reliable sources (Ian Kershaw, John Toland, and Ulrich Volker, for instance, give the year 1887 as the date of birth. In 2016, a headmaster in that area of Austria, who has an interest in local history but no credentials as an historian, was said to have found a birth certificate which shows a birth date of 17 June 1892, after, rather than before, Adolf Hitler's birth.

The "discovery" was reported in a local regional newspaper, and the story was picked up by Reuters. However, no other news sources have repeated the story, and there are no scholarly papers which discuss the new date or the provenance or legitimacy of the document. (The links to all these are available in the discussion on the talk page.) In other words, to my knowledge, there are no reliable sources which support this new birth date.

Several editors have attempted to insert the new date in the article. I have explained -- numerous times -- that as of the moment, the "fact" has not been validated by subject experts, and there is no known consensus among them that the new birth date is correct. Until we have that consensus, through published reliable sources, we cannot add that formation or change the birth date.

I have asked -- again, numerous times -- for any reliable sources which support the supposed change of birth date. Finally, one editor posted a long comment, the nub of which was if you look at so-and-so document than it will show you -- if interpreted in such a way -- the new date. I have tried to explain that this is original research, and that not only are we, as Wikipedia editors, not qualified to interpret a document that we can see by way of a digital scan, but we are not allowed to do so.

The editor does not accept either contention, that we need reliable sources from experts to confirm the new date,or that we are not allowed to evaluate documents on our own.

I'm filing this because, in an attempt to perhaps alleviate the dispute, I added a footnote to the article recounting, with sources, the story of the "discovery" and the limited reporting of it. The editor -- although unwilling to accept that their interpreting a document is original research -- appears to think that my footnote is original research, although everything in it is supported by citations to reliable sources. It's likely that they will be heading this way to file a complaint, and I thought it would be better to explain the underlying circumstance before they did, because I have no faith in their willingness to do so fairly, so strongly do they believe in the validity of the new birth date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems quite simple. If there's a reliable secondary source giving the date, Wikipedia can relay that. If there isn't, we keep schtum. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a tiny more complicated than that, but basically you are correct. The editor claims that the new date is accepted by a new biography of Hitler by an Austrian historian, which is in German.  The problem is that many more existing reliable sources accept the established date, so there is no consensus of subject experts who accept the new date. The only other sources I could find were the single Reuters report -- which, in this context -- cannot really be called a reliable source, as it's all written in the "it's been reported that" voice, not in Reuter's voice, and it clearly relies on the report in the local Austrian regional newspaper.  The Reuters story has absolutely no detail. In their edits to the article  and, the editor claims that the information is "well sourced", but their references are to the Reuters report, the document itself, and to the German-language biography I mentioned above.  This is not "well-sourced", and it's certainly not sufficient to overcome the existing corpus of reliably sourced information supporting the earlier date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, Reuters and primary source documents are off the table when we have secondary academic sources. In the disputed edits I'm not see a reference to this new biography. What is it - can we have a reference? Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the book in question is an "academic source", considering that one of the authors "is an exhibition curator, an advisor for radio broadcasts and TV documentaries and directs scientific research projects. He also teaches at the Department of Contemporary History of the University of Vienna", while the other is " is an Austrian author, cultural scientist and exhibition curator" who studied "theater, media, and art history". These hardly seem like the credentials of a subject experts on either Hitler, Austrian and German history of that period, or documents from that era.  Cf. Ian Kershaw, who "is an English historian whose work has chiefly focused on the social history of 20th-century Germany. He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, and is particularly noted for his biographies of Hitler."  Indeed, even the author of the most recent two-volume biography of Hitler, Volker Ullrich, wrote in it that Kershaw's 2-volume biography is likely to remain the definitive biography of Hitler for many years to come.When the new date is accepted by people like Kershaw, Ullrich, Richard J. Evans and the like, when there is a consensus about the date and not simply a single outlier book, then I have absolutley no objection to the article being changed.  I have no personal attachment to any theory about what Otto Hitler's date of birth was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hannes Leidinger is a full historical scholar with habilitation. You can hardly deny his competence by listing what else he is, neither because he works with a co-author. --KnightMove (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no indication that he has any expertise in this particular subject area, unless you would like to provide some. Anyone can write a book about Hitler -- and many, many have -- but whether the book can be taken seriously or not, or relied on, is a matter of who wrote it and what their qualifications are.  These two authors do not seem to have any credentials which qualify them to write about Hitler as experts.  Nor do they have -- it appears -- any training in determining the validity and provenance of documents.  They must have relied on some other source -- it's unfortunate that the Google books except doesn't include footnote 3, which would presumably have shown what the source of their information was.  If it was -- as you attempted to do in the discussion on the article talk page -- simply their looking at the supposed newly discovered document, then the books is completely useless as a source for that information, because just as they don't appear to be experts on Hitler, they certainly aren't experts on validating historical documents.Again, I remind everyone about the history of the Hitler Diaries, which were authenticated by Hugh Trevor-Roper, who then changed his mind, and forensics determined that they were fakes.  Nothing like that has been done to this new document -- at least as far as we know, because nothing whatsoever has been reported about them after the initial Reuters report.  We simply do not know if they're real, or fake, or don't actually show the information they're supposed to or what, because there are no reliable sources to go by, and your personal interpretation of the document (or rather a scan of the document) is as close to the ur-definition of OR as it's possible to get.Frankly, the fact that you're still fighting to get the new date in the article is astounding to me, given the many ways that it just doesn't satisfy our requirements -- and that's something you seem to be unable to understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, the cite he provided was to this on Google Books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Here it is: by Austrian historic scholar de:Hannes Leidinger. --KnightMove (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The authors of the book are Hannes Leidinger and Christian Rapp (author). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very well. --KnightMove (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

For context: The filing here is Beyond My Ken's reaction (see explanation below) to mine on Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, motivated by his highly unneutral and OR-based insertion Hitler_family and his edit-warring about keeping it in this specific POV version. Without those actions, no filing anywhere would have been necessary and continuation on the talk page would have been possible. --KnightMove (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of these WikiProjects: Biography, Austria, Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 
 *  A pointer to this discussion has been placed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 
 *  Note: The current version of the article with the thread starter's insertion Hitler_family, which has provoked escalation of the conflict beyond the talk page, is discussed at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. --KnightMove (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 
 * Ah, check the time stamps, please. I filed my report at "06:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)", and you filed yours at "07:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)" Please strike out your incorrect contention above.
 * It's ridiculous to say that discussion on the talk age could have continued, since you do not appear to understand how OR and RS work, even though they they were explained to you many times. You cannot interpret the document, that's OR, and you must provide reliable sources to show a consensus of subject experts to support your preferred birth date.  Without that, the information is WP:FRINGE.  The footnote was an attempt to show that there was something of a controversy about the birth date, but that there were no reliable sources to support it, and that's what it did.  Every fact was supported by a  source: that the "discoverer" is a headmaster, that he has an interest in history but no credentials as an historian, that there is nothing on Google Scholar showing any research into the new date -- all sourced.  You don't like it, because it contradicts your personal belief that the new date is factual, and therefore I must be operating out of a non-neutral point of view, so you file a complaint at NPOVN, but I have no point of view about Otto's birthdate, except that if we report a date, it needs to not violate basic policies like OR and RS.  My only "pont of view" is that we must follow basic Wikpedia policies, or the whole project comes crashing down around us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. The timeflow was: You pointed me to WP:ORN yesterday night. This morning I announced to report your current version of the article on the talk page at 6:20 there. I had to make myself familiar with the rules here and in other places and to do real-life stuff in between. Until I had made up my mind to file a report in Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, ompleted at 7:50, you had taken my announcement into your own hands and created the section above at 6:44. Ok, I had missed that, my bad. Still this does not mean your current version is not to be discussed. --KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing the policy of No_original_research:
 * "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

I think that the extraction of the baptismal register I gave in Talk:Hitler_family is well within that rule, as it is for a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - only with spending few more seconds than just e.g. reading a single sentence. Anyway this primary source is even much easier: It's the newspaper de:Neue Warte am Inn, 25 June 1892, hosted by the Austrian National Library. In the mid column, you find: I think it is a "straightforward, descriptive statement" from that source that Otto Hitler was born on 17 June 1892. Or if not, why not? --KnightMove (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC) PS: This is also cited in the book source mentioned above - so not just by me. --KnightMove (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In this case, is it not possible to include the traditionally accepted date in wikivoice but explain that the second date was claimed by the local headmaster based on the Reuters reference and the new book by the German historian?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The local headmaster is not a subject expert, and the Reuters story is simply reporting his supposed findings. The book is not written by subject experts, and not published by a house known to have the error checking and correcting necessary for reliability.  Due to this, there is no reliable source to support the supposed "new" date. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, a published book is sufficient to establish the existence of a theory, and satisfies notability, assuming it is not self-published. It's not enough to state it as a fact in wikipedia's voice, but it is enough to include it as information, if a user wants to do so. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not the case. Please read WP:RS.  Not all books are created equal, and a book written by two non-experts is not a reliable source for historical question.  The information is already in the article in a footnote, and that is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've checked out the author, Hannes Leidinger, he's a professor of history who specialises in the period to which the book refers. The publishing house, Residenz Verlag, is respectable and has been in existence since 1956. It's RS, I'm afraid. Like I said, we can't wikivoice it, but inclusion in the article is merited. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your facts are incorrect. I'm not going to repeat what already been discussed to death.  Not RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I am taking my information from the German wikipedia pages, perhaps you could clarify. Is it not the case that Leidinger is a professional academic historian specialising in the early 20th century? Is Residenz Verlag not a respectable publishing house? If both of these things are true then his book is clearly a reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right. But when an expert in Wikipedia rules judges "Nor do they have -- it appears -- any training in determining the validity and provenance of documents... they don't appear to be experts on Hitler, they certainly aren't experts on validating historical documents." - that must be a valid and founded verdict against a universitary historian and his partner, so what could you do about it! --KnightMove (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Vlachs in medieval Serbia
''Израз Власи у средњовековној Србији има више различитих значења. То су пре све-га становници романског порекла, али и зависни сточари. (The term Vlachs in medieval Serbia has several different meanings. These are, first of all, inhabitants of Roman origin, but also dependent cattle breeders.'') This is information from RS.


 * This is my information: "While the term Vlachs had more meaning, primarily denote the inhabitants of  Aromanian origin and also dependent shepherds in the medieval Serbian state."


 * I don't know which link to put for "Roman" origin information. Whether Aromanian or just to write Roman origin? That this wouldn't be OR issue please give me your opinion or suggestion. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Romanskog porekla refers to Aromanians. About Vlachs as a class, you might want to explore --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lake Michigan–Huron
Is Lake Michigan–Huron actually a thing? On Google, Wikipedia seems to be the only source stating an entity such as "Lake Michigan–Huron". On the given sources, they don't mention the existence of one kind of "Lake Michigan–Huron" (eg here). The other sources say "Lakes Michigan and Huron are considered to be one lake, as they rise and fall together due to their union at the Straits of Mackinac." but none actually say "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a thing. This appears to be WP:SYNTH, or am I mistaken? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, it appears some of the external links are misquoted. For example, the bottom of the page says "Precipitation and the levels of Lake Michigan-Huron". Journal of Geophysical Research." but the source actually says "Precipitation and the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron" -- no conjunction, and plural "lakes". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article does not present that as a quote, but the very first link you gave as, "eg here", as an actual quote, says: "Lake Huron-Michigan, at 45,300 mi2 / 117,400 km2 is technically the world's largest freshwater lake. This is because what have traditionally been called Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are really giant lobes of a single lake connected by the five mile wide Strait of Mackinac."  So it's yes, it's a thing, "a single lake connected by the five mile wide Strait of Mackinac", and no Wikipedia did not invent the connection, the fact of the Strait of Mackinac does. The Wikipedia article in footnote 22 does provide a quote from Canadian Geographic: " . . . mighty Lake Michigan–Huron, which is a single hydrological unit linked at the Straits of Mackinac." So again, it's a thing not invented by Wikipedia, its "a single hydrological unit linked at the Straits of Mackinac". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it OR to present criticism the way I did
The following is submitted to get advice from experienced editors. It is about the notion of original research as applied to the real-life subject-matter (topic) of an article and to texts about the topic, or sources. It is best seen in example, which is my post with a subsequent discussion on the Russian Wikipedia (where I am Senior Seismologist), see item 2 in the table of contents there.

There are several topics that engender lively criticism, especially in history interpretations, see Historical revisionism. Examples are Holocaust denial, New chronology (Fomenko), and Soviet offensive plans controversy, among many others. The last mentioned resulted in a great body of scholarly and other criticism. Consequently, one needs to have both the theory and the criticism set forth for the reader to see what is the matter. The question at issue is that the Soviet Union was going to attack Nazi Germany in 1941, but was forestalled.

The leading proponent of this theory is Viktor Suvorov. His views were criticized in great detail by Alexey Isaev (referred to as the Critic in what follows) in his book Anti-Suvorov (in Russian). This book is an important contribution, because all the other publications merely pronounced adverse opinion. I sought to set forth the respective arguments of Suvorov and the Critic in order to make clear the salient points for the reader. I wish to emphasize that the following applies to this situation alone, viz., given the existence of two conflicting sources, setting forth the arguments of the two sources to see the differences. I am interested to know whether my exposition of the criticism is admissible within the Wikipedia policies.

The first thesis that the Critic tackled was that the Soviet Union's plan of war was an offensive one as put forward by Suvorov. The Critic began by saying that he was going to refute this. However, having said so much, he immediately started arguing for a different thesis, namely, that the plan was not particularly aggressive compared with those of some other countries. That is to say, the thesis to be criticized has been replaced with another.

My exposition of the debate ran as follows:

Suvorov asserted that the Soviet Union had an offensive plan of war. While declaring that he was going to refute this thesis, the Critic did not consider it, but criticized a different target instead, viz., that the plan of the Soviet Union was the most aggressive compared with those of other countries. Thus, the Critic has left Suvorov's thesis uncontested, but argued in favor of a thesis of his own.

The Russian editors raised objections to the words highlighted in bold face as being original research, e.g., one editor said I needed a reliable source for the statement the Critic did not consider it. The reasons I quoted on the talk page for the admissibility of my exposition were:

The essay WP:These are not original research

"At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions. Comparing and contrasting these conflicts is not generally classed as original research..., but synthesis or unsupported conclusions based on those conflicts must not appear in an article...Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition."

That is just the case here.

As to conclusions, there is this distinction drawn:

The essay WP:Attribution:

"Material counts as original research if it:

•	introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or

•	introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article."

Concerning the essay WP:Attribution: "at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page held a unique quasi-official status as a "canonical summary", see Preface to Wikipedia talk:Attribution.

I understand the bold-type phrase in the extract from WP:Attribution to have two meanings. First, as a warning from appealing to evidence from unrelated sources, sources that are not directly relevant to the topic of the article. Secondly, it stresses the fact that it is analysis, synthesis etc. in application to real-life subject-matter only (the topic of the article) which would constitute original research, while the same procedures in application to the text of secondary sources are normal tools in use for writing or editing Wikipedia articles.

What I did in my exposition of the debate was to contrast a thesis and a criticism of it (two conflicting sources) to let the reader see the essence of the criticism. The opinion of the Russian editors was that telling the reader what one of the two sources considers or omits to consider (left uncontested for criticism and not advanced for the source being criticized) in the situation referred to was unwarranted.

The reservation in bold face is important, because statements about the absence of any material from a source per se, without having two sources in parallel, would either make no sense or else could be classified as original research indeed.

If we present the information in tabular form to show it side by side without adding anything by the editor, it would look like the following:

Note: The empty cell in the Critic column for a topic denotes an absence of any criticism concerning the topic, while the empty cell in the Suvorov column means that the relevant topic has not been advanced by Suvorov.

This satisfies WP:Neutral point of view and is exactly what I said verbally above.

I would like to see the opinion on the issue by editors on the English Wikipedia. Please disregard the two references below. I dont know how they have slipped in. ChalSeismo (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I have to ask whether you intend these edits for the English language version of Wikipedia, or the Russian language version? If you are intending to edit in the Russian version, note that they may have different policies and guidelines in place (the various versions are independent communities, and so often have different rules).  Any advice we give you here would only apply to the English version. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to build two versions of what I outlined above. The item about the plans is just a minute portion. What you said about there being different policies in Wikipedias written in different languages is a surprise. This is equivalent to nationality influencing how Wikipedia is to be carried on. While reading material on the Russian Wikipedia, I have encountered many times references to the English-language Wikipedia pilicies, essays, etc. with " I'm sorry, this has been translated in part only". It was never "This Russian Wikipedia has policies of its own". However that may be, I would like a discussion, and advice, in principle, as if it was designed for the English Wikipedia only. The point of special interest is this: original research is out of the question as concerns the subject-matter of an article (real-life stuff, or the topic of the article), while we may, and actually do, original research in application to the text of secondary sources to write an article. This distinction is fairly general, because how is one to write or edit an article without, first, reading a relevant source, noting its essential points, condensing them for paraphrasing, omitting inessential material, and finally setting forth our research in the form of texts suitable for Wikipedia? Excuse my verbosity. You must concede the point as being obligatory to any Wikipedia, in my opinion at least. ChalSeismo (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A specification on the above: please give your comment and advice as if the material I am going to add concerns the English-language Wikipedia only. ChalSeismo (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok... before we address any NOR questions... a few initial thoughts (and they involve multiple policies, not just NOR)... first is the potential issue of UNDUE WEIGHT (a sub-concept of NPOV). In broad terms, are Suvorov’s ideas accepted or rejected by his fellow academics?  IF Suvorov is the only historian to claim that the Soviets were planning on attacking in 1941, then his arguments may potentially be WP:FRINGE... and if so, then giving a detailed critique of his claims may actually end up giving them UNDUE weight.
 * In other words, you may be giving the entire “debate” more text space than it deserves. As a somewhat ridiculous (but clear cut) example: imagine that some nut job author seriously proposed that the Moon was made of green cheese. Including a detailed explanation of why the Moon isn’t  made of green cheese in the article on the Moon would actually be UNDUE, because doing so would give undue weight to the idea that the moon might be made of green cheese, and give the impression that there is serious debate on that issue (when in fact there is no real “debate” at all).
 * Now, If Suvorov’s ideas are not fringe (and other historians support the idea that the Soviets were planning an invasion), then we can talk further. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

At first I was at a loss for arguments when you told me to prove that Suvorov's theories were not of the kind of the flat-earth hypothesis (or is it a theory?). As if one who had a mastiff for years would have been told to produce evidence to prove it was not a chihuahua. That was why I was so late answering.

I present below publications discussing Suvorov's theses over the years (whether supporting or otherwise) since the first appearance of his opus magnum, Icebreaker.

-

First, there was a German Eisbrecher translated from his manuscript (Der Eisbrecher : Hitler in Stalins Kalkül, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 1989).

https://www.buchfreund.de/de/d/e/9783608915112/der-eisbrecher-hitler-in-stalins-kalkuel-eine?bookId=65828855

The English Icebreaker was issued the following year (Icebreaker, 1990 Hamish Hamilton, translated by Thomas B. Beattie)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/icebreaker-who-started-the-second-world-war/oclc/906555960

About the Hamish Hamilton publishing house:

"Hamish Hamilton Limited was a British book publishing house, founded in 1931 eponymously by Jamie Hamilton... Jamie Hamilton sold the firm to the Thomson Organisation in 1965, who resold it to Penguin Books in 1986. In 2013, Penguin merged with Random House, making Hamish Hamilton an imprint of Penguin Random House."

The Russian edition appeared two years later (Ledokol, 1992, Novoe Vremya publishers).

Suvorov wrote more books elaborating on the theme and adding details, but I pass to reviews and publications dealing with his main book.

The publications should be either by respectable authors or by respectable publishers, or both, to demonstrate the public and academic importance of the subject.

While Suvorov was trying in vain to get his Ledokol (Icebreaker) published in the West, other people conceived similar ideas:

1983: Joachim Hoffmann (see 3.1) in volume IV of the German history of World War II Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg

1985: Ernst Topitsch (see https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Ernst_Topitsch for information on this writer) with his book Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War (English and German Edition), see

https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Radical-Origins-English/dp/0312009895

1998, 3rd edition: ''Stalins Krieg. Moskaus Griff nach der Weltherrschaft'', Herford 1985, 3. Aufl. 1998

-

Books or articles (here, in English only) reviewing Suvorov's books or discussing his theses:

1990:

review of Icebreaker 1st edition by Robin Edmonds (International Affairs, Volume 66, Issue 4, October 1990, Page 812), see

https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/66/4/812/2470666?redirectedFrom=PDF

International Affairs is "one of the world's leading journals of international relations and one of the few to cover the entire discipline".

1995

Gabriel Gorodetsky, The Icebreaker Myth, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1995 (G. Gorodetsky is an Israeli historian who came to Russia for research and was aided by Russian military historians affiliated with the Ministry of Defense). The book is available in Russian only. That Gorodetsky is a respectable historian appears from he information provided in the Wikipedia article on him.

--

1998:

Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War, by David M. Glantz. Modern War Studies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998. xvii, 374 pp.

Contains an extensive criticism of Suvorov's ideas as is evident from the summary at

https://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Colossus-World-Modern-Studies/dp/0700617892

About the author:

David Glantz: David M. Glantz (born January 11, 1942) is an American military historian known for his books on the Red Army during World War II, and as the chief editor of The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.

The Journal of Slavic Military Studies is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes articles relating to military affairs of Central and Eastern European Slavic nations, including their history and geopolitics, as well as book reviews.

-

1999:

Teddy J. Uldricks. The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler? Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643

The Icebreaker is Suvorov's main work as mentioned above.

The Slavic Review is a major peer-reviewed academic journal.

-

Gabriel Gorodetsky. Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999

"The book was written, in part, to respond to Suvorov's claims", according to this review:

https://networks.h-net.org/node/10000/reviews/10279/slepyan-gorodetsky-grand-delusion-stalin-and-german-invasion-russia

A summary at Amazon.com says this book also deals with the pre-emptive strike thesis, see

(https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300077920):

The summary is this:

"This important book draws on vital new archival material to unravel the mystery of Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941 and Stalin's enigmatic behavior on the eve of the attack. Challenging the currently popular view that Stalin was about to invade Germany when Hitler made a preemptive strike, Gorodetsky argues that Stalin was actually negotiating for peace in order to redress the European balance of power."

Now "Challenging...strike" is exactly Suvorov's assertion.

2000:

From the 'Holltrop on Glantz' review concerning Viktor Suvorov as analyzed by Glantz in his 1998 book, see above (available at Humanities and Social Sciences online). Nearly half of this long review is devoted to comparing Suvorov's evidence and Glantz' criticism of it. See

https://networks.h-net.org/node/10000/reviews/10228/holtrop-glantz-stumbling-colossus-red-army-eve-world-war):

Quotations:

"German authors following his thesis include Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945 (Munich, 1995); Walter Post, Unternehmen Barbarossa: Deutsche und Sowjetische Angriffsplane 1940/41 (second ed. Hamburg, 1996); and Werner Maser, Der Wortbruch: Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg (Munich, 1994). These authors agree with Suvorov, at least that Stalin planned a Summer 1941 attack."

Concerning the resource:

https://networks.h-net.org/node/513/pages/1301/about :

H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Our edited networks publish peer reviewed essays, multimedia materials, and discussions for colleagues and the interested public. The computing heart and main office of H-Net resides at the History Department, Michigan State University, but H-Net officers, editors and subscribers come from all over the globe

---

2006

WP:Soviet offensive plans controversy: "his (Suvorov's) most vehement Russian critic, Alexei Isayev" wrote the most detailed criticism of Suvorov's theory ,Anti-Suvorov, 2006, available in Russian only. Isayev is a Doctor of historical sciences.

2009:

Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 by Albert L. Weeks (Rowman & Littlefield)

On the publishers from Rowman & Littlefield:

"Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group is an independent publishing house founded in 1949. Under several imprints, the company offers scholarly books for the academic market, as well as trade books."

A review is available in Europe-Asia Studies, 2004, vol. 56, no. 7, 1081-1092

Europe-Asia Studies: Europe-Asia Studies is an academic peer-reviewed journal published 10 times a year by Routledge on behalf of the Institute of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and continuing (since vol. 45, 1993) the journal Soviet Studies (vols. 1-44, 1949–1992), which was renamed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

From the review:

"Gorodetsky wanted to prove wrong Viktor Rezun (aka Suvorov),... One can see the afﬁnity between Suvorov and Weeks, and it is therefore not surprising that Weeks wants to challenge Gorodetsky."

The review is available in full at

https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/carleym/MonDepotPublic/Carley%27s%20Web%20site/SovietForeignPolicy1936-41.htm

--- The list to follow consists of Russian books that mostly purport to refute Suvorov's ideas:

1999: V. Nikolsky, Aquarium-2, Moscow, Geya Iterum (this book is by a former GRU officer describing his carreer, with an aside against Suvorov put in)

2004: V. Gryzun, How Viktor Suvorov invented his theory, Moscow, OLMA-PRESS

2005: A. Zorin, Sink the "Icebreaker"!, available at

http://militera.lib.ru/research/zorin_aa/index.html

2011:

K. Zakoretsky, The Debacle of Viktor Suvorov, Moscow, Yauza Eksmo (Debacle translates the title of a 2008 book by Suvorov. It is here discussed and in part criticized)

A. Nikonov, Be the first to strike!, Moscow, NTs ENAS (supportive)

''Viktor Suvorov without Censorship. Against Bigoted Stalinism,'' Moscow, YAUZA PRESS (supportive)

2013:

D. Verkhoturov, ''Viktor Suvorov is a lier! Sink the Icebreaker'', Moscow, YAUZA_PRESS

2016: S. Zhevalov, ''Anti-Suvorov. The Icebreaker stands refuted!'', Moscow, Algoritm

2020: V. Litvinenko, Sinister Myths about the Great Victory, in a popular newspaper "Sovetskaya Rossiya" (Soviet Russia) https://sovross.ru/articles/1945/47492

I would like to know whether I have succeeded to show that Suvorov and his theory, while being unorthodox, excite general public and academic interest, hence deserve a careful treatment ChalSeismo (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is OR. OR can be explicit, as when you say the Critic did not refute Suvorov's thesis, or implicit. You should consider Suvorov and the Critic as primary sources for their own opinions. Articles however should mostly be based on secondary sources. These sources will explain the various theories, what disputes there are and the degree of acceptance of each theory. Tertiary sources should also be helpful for establishing weight. If these sources do not mention the Critic, then his views lack weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

TFD, there must be a misunderstanding in all of this. My contribution was in two parts, the first quoting my exposition of the debate as submitted for the Russian Wikipedia and the second being a lengthy explanation, appending numerous sources, for the user Blueboar that Suvorov's theories were not like the flat-earth hypothesis or about the Moon as made of green cheese. Which do you object to? ChalSeismo (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A modification: my question refers to the two parts of my contribution on this page, not to the choice between the flat earth and the Moon made of green cheese ChalSeismo (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International
The article on Faith Freedom International (FFI) is thoroughly trimmed down as compared with an older revision. FFI is the site of Ali Sina (activist), who used to be a secularist critic of Islam, and debated several notable Muslems on his site. Over the years, Sina became more involved in far-right, Islamophobic circles.

I happened to be the author of the "Notable content"-paragraph in the older revision. The debate-part in the article was originally written by someone else, with a longer list of people who debated Sina. However, to prevent violations of WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP, the only remaining debates are those who also appear in the books and at the sites of Sina's opponents (like the one with Edip Yuksel).

For the articles on FFI, the site provided a list of authors. I looked which authors were notable enough to have their own Wikipedia-article, like Steven Emerson and Geert Wilders. The next thing to do, was checking if the author's article on FFI had an identical article on the site of the author, or another reliable source. If so, I could add the name of the author on the article, sourced by links to both articles. As such, WP:V, WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP were covered.

A few months ago, User:Snuish2 pointed out two problems with this:
 * Given the increasingly far-right nature of FFI, and therefor of the features authors the sites I linked to fail spectacularly as a WP:RS. However, I realize that, as User:SlimVirgin said in a discussion regarding the article in 2010: I should not use them as a source for anything except the most basic details about itself that you can't obtain from anywhere else, and which are harmless. Author names fall under this category.
 * Going through the Faith Freedom website and citing articles from individuals that have Wikipedia pages and then citing written material by the same authors outside of Faith Freedom smacks to me of original research (particularly WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), since Wikipedia is still not citing a single reliable source that states something to the effect of "Faith Freedom International includes articles written by these individuals..."

However, unlike that last argument, I believe the sections are completely in the spirit of what WP:WEB states:

Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it:
 * has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article;
 * avoids self-promotion; and
 * includes information that can be verified through independent sources.

On Snuish2's suggestion, I have taken it now to the OR-noticeboard. The question here is: did the Notable Content-section violate WP:OR, or was the section acceptable for including in an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing the issue to this noticeboard, Jeff. Yes, it's my position that the section was a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'd like to add that I don't think the section of WP:WEB you've cited applies to this discussion since we're not debating whether that material is noteworthy enough for inclusion or noteworthy enough for a "separate, stand-alone" article. Even if it were applicable to this discussion, the section would violate the second prong regarding avoiding self-promotion and the third prong regarding verifiability in independent sources. Snuish2 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And thank you for joining the discussion! I am not sure if this is the right platform, but I would also like to bring in the Red Table Talk-article. Here, the episodes-list has any references to establish that those interviews really took place. The same goes for the claimed contributors for the Huffpost-article. There, the unpaid bloggers are mentioned, and only sourced by a link to the Huffpost-site itself. As such, these sections have worse sourcing than the "Notable content"-section of the FFI-article. What should happen with them? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to draw more attention to this issue? Snuish2 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. However, recently I have become a bit disillusioned on the way this encyclopedia going. Here you can read my most important objections, and because of them I have decided to switch my attention to the Commons-section. As such, I would say: if nobody else shows up to agree with me, then you are free to decide if you use my arguments and comments above while editing the FFI-article. Good luck and kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

List of one-hit wonders on the UK Singles Chart
Hello, I think there is a bit of 'original research' going on to what constitutes a one-hit wonder in the UK chart, with some editor making their own rules up rather than just reflecting what is posted on the Official Charts Company site...

Originally in 2008, Cexycy updated the list and put this in the comments page...


 * "I have the Guiness Hit Singles book, edition 7. Yes I know this is a long time ago, however later versions do not seem to include the One Hit Wonders and other interesting bits of pop trivia.  I did e-mail them and asked them to include bits and they said they would in the next edition.  Sadly this was not the case. In the edition I have, they list the One Hit Wonders, up to 1988, then they list the ones which appeared in different guises, such and Frank and Nancy Sinatra with Something Stupid, etc. It is in this list that John Denver appears as on his own, he IS a OHW, however him and Placido Domingo are technically another artist.  Therefore under the guide of (just) John Denver, he IS a ONW, not the sort that should be included in the main list. should be included in the Worthy Note section of the article for this very reason.  As should all the other artist collabortations.  They have just as much right to be there as the charity acts, who are just the same. I forgot to add, the article itself says Guinness Book of Hit Singles' policy will be used, and they have included John Denver in their list of OHWs in other guises.  I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but please bear this in mind".  --Cexycy (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

and the reply years later was...

As for the Nancy and Frank Sinatra case - that's a tricky one really, the Guinness Book of does list all those instances as well, as an act in their own right, they are technically a OHW, but I feel that common sense needs to come into it a little bit with these artists - as well as the fact that the list will become very long. If you look - Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin are listed seperately although their No.1 was together, but are in the list because neither had another hit. It's a bit of a grey issue, but it would seem a bit silly to have Frank Sinatra listed as a OHW, but I won't argue on a technicality and it's up to consensus really. But yes, I agree with you now, John Denver would be worth mentioning at least". --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I agree, the Guinness Book of does list all the collaborations, so fair enough. It's probably worth listing given that he's never had another hit otherwise.

Now a few days ago I added "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock as it was missing from the list...at a point that the one hit wonders list was full of secondary/featured artists and so added it and put the following info in the comments section...

"Info about GoonRock (see below) added under 'Collaborations classified as one-hit wonders' though you might want to move him to the main section. I only have the Virgin book to hand, not the Guinness ones so I cannot check how they listed collaborations between three artists listed equally...though it is likely to be separate in the early days of the Guinness books as something like 'DAVID GUETTA & CHRIS WILLIS' would have been listed as a separate recording act to David Guetta on his own as they've had 4 hits together (if it was just one David Guetta ft Chris Willis that would be added to Guetta's hit total) As the methodology stated in the intro is about two artists releasing a record together and getting to number one and not three artists credited equally by the OCC getting to number one, I wasn't sure where to add GoonRock, but obviously it needs to be on here...

''According to the Official Charts Company (OCC), "Party Rock Anthem" is a number one record credited jointly to LMFAO/Lauren Bennett/GoonRock. Of these three acts LMFAO are credited with having five Top 75 hits with their other number one "Gettin' Over You" only credited to David Guetta and Chris Willis at this moment (the OCC have decided not to credit LMFAO and Fergie, even though their names are shown on the website, appearing on the single's cover) Lauren Bennett has never had any other hits under her own name, but has had a few hits as part of the band G.R.L., while GoonRock is a producer who has also never had any credited hits of his own.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.1 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however at this point Tuzapicabit came back after deleting the information...and said...


 * "I've already removed the entry. The OCC doesn't give accurate credits probably due to space. The single was by LMFAO and featured the other two, so not eligible". Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

...however I think that this is not just reporting on what the OCC have put, but turning into a bit of 'original research' by Tuzapicabit as he has put no links to this reasoning...with Tuzapicabit deciding what can or cannot be on the list. However as he didn't want all the secondary artists listed they were all removed from the main list as a compromise...I replied...

"...but you can only go off what the OCC states not what Wikipedia is saying and if the OCC state they are credited jointly then so be it. By the way I have removed all the featured artists from the list because that is your reasoning for GoonRock not being in the main list (he should be, though note that I didn't add him directly to the main list). I have not removed Avery Storm at this point at this point as if you look at the wikipedia article for Nasty Girl (The Notorious B.I.G. song) you can see the cover of the record an it it by Notorious B.I.G. featuring Diddy, Nelly Jagged Edge, and Avery Storm. You can be overly pedantic if you want but all information has to be treated equally, and therefore I expect you to delete Avery Storm from the list if you believe all featured artists are not eligible". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.237.218 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the inclusion of featured artists (or more correctly secondary artists) boils down to the introduction in a very old chart book...which is probably 30 years out of date and one which has not kept up to date with the charts, as in the 1980s any artist with an '&' and 'versus' on their name were seen as a completely separate act and given their own entry. However, now the OCC state that Tina Turner's first hit was "RIVER DEEP, MOUNTAIN HIGH" (number 3 in 1966 with Ike) with Tina having 44 UK Top 75s between 1966 - 2020. Its the same for Cher, who had had 42 UK Top 75s between 1965 - 2013 with her first hit being "I GOT YOU BABE", a number one. So are you going to argue with the Official Charts Company, who are the people whose information we are basing the facts on, the people who make the rules? By the way, there seems to be no information to what makes a hit in the current chart rules for a secondary artist...with the only information being found being the following...


 * "5.0 Combining of Transactions
 * i) A maximum of three singles within the Top 100 by the same artist will be chart eligible. These will be the three most popular singles in a week based on combined sales and streams. (Also see 6.0 Exclusions)
 * ii) In the case of singles featuring a secondary artist(s), they will only count towards the primary named artist’s maximum of three chart eligible singles.
 * iii) In the case of singles that are equal collaborations between two or more artists, a single will count towards the maximum of three chart eligible singles of the artist on the releasing label".

However from the lists of edits it looks like some people have been making it up as they go along, deciding what the rules are...doesn't this go against the idea of Wikipedia, the 'No original research', the neutral point of view, the just 'report on the information from the primary source' idea of the site. I deleted the featured artists from the main list to give people the benefit of the doubt, in good faith, because that what the advice was. But I don't think this is correct, I don't think they should be deleted, I still believe its important information, and I would expect someone to re-edit the information back at some point and maybe put elsewhere in the article.

Its one thing to continue a list from a 1989 Guinness Book of British Hit Singles because the book is not being published, but it does seem that people are sitting on the article, making up their own rules as they go along which is not helping help the wikipedia project, not welcoming to newcomers and you might as well scrap the article and merge it into the main One-hit wonders list as it becomes and as worthy as OnePoll's The Nation's Favourite One Hit Wonders list.

Some of the entries that remain even contradict the OCC's information provided on their site ( "...records with re-recorded vocals (for example, live versions) and Remixes released with substantially different catalogue numbers did not count towards the total and were seen as new hits (see "Blue Monday" as an example). "]] but if its the Official Charts Company information that people are using to state what is number one then it should always be the primary source.

Nevada Athletic Commission records 1980s
I would like to contribute Nevada Athletic Commission documents from the 1980s to the Commons. These are boxing manager agreements of five fighters who signed with Sally Conforte who is deceased. At least one of the fighters is alive: Vinnie Curto. He has a website and a book I can link to. I can't prove she managed three of the fighters without these documents. Do you think the documents are public domain? Should I scan and upload them? What's best file format to upload? Thanks.Owilli2019 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

French revolution and Hiraab
User:Ayaltimo might be adding original research onto Hiraab Imamate. The page was cleaned up by a bot before, who removed unsourced content that was added including the images and Ayaltimo came back to restore it. I told him that that the sources he adds need to be verifiable or else its just original researchWP:PROVEIT. There is no google search results on this supposed happening, no links or way to verify it and it is never mentioned aside from what he and that other Abshir55 troll account put down on the page.

Just to be clear i have nothing against the addition if it's sourced and real. He just has to prove it.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I just want to say the user Ragnimo has personal issues with me and has been following me around touching my works but I will warn him I will make bold decisions and report him to the moderator if he continues the silly behaviour that can get him banned.


 * As for the bots. Please properly check your links. It only shows the removal of images, not the actual sources which you claimed they removed.


 * The link is blacklisted so combine the two parts of the link I have separated (https://docdro. id/5UGmIFo) If you read on page 108-109. It literally mentions the French invasion of Mogadishu and how the ships sunk. Just because you can't read Arabic doesn't mean others can't.


 * No original research here. Just you being a disruptive user. I suggest you refrain from future conflicts or I will report you to the arbitration for harassment. Ayaltimo (talk) 02:50, 06 February 2021 (UTC)

The only problem i have is with you potentially adding original research onto the Hiraab wikipage, i have had issues with your edit warring and trolling, adding original research before, it's nothing persona and lets keep to the matter before us. I opened up this page on the noticeboard to resolve it to avoid an edit war and i left that page for several days waiting for someone to respond to the notice board request so i am not following anyone.

Please copy and paste the information provided in that link and give translations of its content.

Follow the vefiability guidelines WP:NOENG, english sources are preferred and if you are going to use a non-english source show translations of it.

Cheers. Ragnimo (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No, your personal issue with me is because you assumed I was a sock puppet of Alaska Lava and it was disproven by multiple moderators. You even followed me and removed my work for no apparent reason only because you don't like me.  then you left it alone because you saw how disruptive you are. You have no ground to falsely accuse anybody of adding original research when you claimed Fakr ad-Din was of Ajuran descent.  Please find me a source that illustrates he was of Ajuran origin. I promise you don't have a source for it because it's straight flat out was made up by you and you'll avoid answering the question.


 * For your information, I didn't add the French Reconnaissance. It was Abshir55 another user you falsely accused of being a sock puppet thus it is evident you don't like him and tried to remove his source without any valid reason. You could've pinged him on the talk page and kindly asked him but you show this hostile behaviour which is a bad look to the community. People are supposed to enjoy editing and contributing to this great site not fight with others and cause negativity.


 * There are plenty of non-English sources why don't you verify them? You're only following me around to cause trouble. Let an Arab speaker here read it and verify it. It mentions 7 French ships that sunk.


 * I will warn you next time not to follow me or touch any of my work because I will simply revert back and file a complaint for your ban. Thank you. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:55, 07 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ragnimo

Many Thanks for stepping in, i haven't dealt with you directly so i welcome a third person here, i also have disputes on several pieces of information on that Page which i am happy to discuss any further as i've had well referenced sources discarded by the very person(s) you've argued with. I am not in any way connected to them or any user(s) representing themselves or Alaska or anyone else for that matter.

Cheers. Abshir55 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All i asked was for you to provide a translation for the source to verify if it's real or not and you could have just done that and ended this. But instead are writing paragraphs of personalized projections and dragging off topic stuff into this

Keep this short and simple to the matter at hand. And i have no interest in your other Abshir55 troll account either.

come see this and make an ending judgement about this.I am not interested in a back and forth or edit war. He won't provide a translation for the supposed source he is claiming. Which makes me think it's most likely fake, the content of it has nothing to do with it and there is no google search results or any other english source mentioning this supposed happening.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a recommendation here? I have just attempted to read the junk that is posted above and have no idea what you are fighting about. This is the "No Original Research" noticeboard, we want to know what it is you disagree about, not why you hate each other. An image has been deleted, User:Ayaltimo post it below please and say why you think it is original research to include it. Ragnimo you can then explain why you think it is not original research. Do not make any references to your past discussions/disagreements because they are of no relevance to the matter at hand, this is the main reason that nobody has answered you. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

v Area for discussion that actually has a point v
Ok thank you User:Boynamedsue i will keep it simple and to the point. I am the one who believes it is original research not User:Ayaltimo. He included this Hiraab_Imamate into the Hirab article, with the section title French Reconnaissance. I looked it up and there is no google search results on this, not a single source on the web mentions this. Which makes me believe its Original research he is trying to slip in.

So i opened this board asking for people to look into it and i asked him to verify and prove it. Then he linked me The History of Somalia Sharif Aydurus https://www.docdro id.net/5UGmIFo/the-history-of-somalia-sharif-aydurus-pdf#page=108 and said it's written on page 108-109, but it's in Arabic. I would be careful about clicking on this link do it from a secure browser with a VPN/Proxy. I asked him to copy it and provide a side by side translation of it where it mentions French Invasion instead. He hasn't provided a translation of it instead went on a tandem of personalized attacks and off topic inchoerent ramblings.

But this is why i think it's original research. Ragnimo (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, Ragnimo, thanks for the answer. Why do you believe it to be dangerous to click on that link? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Boynamedsue I believe it could be risky because docdroid net is blacklisted website on wiki and as spam elsewhere and he had to publish it in space seperation because wiki doesn't allow it and its coming from a troll user as you can see above from his ramblings above. I nonethless opened it with a secure browser with a VPN/Proxy to check it's content it contains a history book that is refrenced in other Academic sources but none of those english sources that refrences that book mentions French incursion in 1701    Ragnimo (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so we can be sure there is a source but not of what it says. Please don't make accusations of trolling here, if you seriously feel it to be a problem, you should speak directly to an admin.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo, I have also looked in French and Italian for sources relating to a French incursion to Somalia in 1701, and found nothing except wiki-type sites which do not cite a source. Could you provide the relevant Arabic text with a translation into English? Unless you do so, the information can not remain in the article. It is up to you to provide that information when challenged. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Boynamedsue. In Wikipedia, there are plenty of English articles that use non-English sources for references so the excuse he is making is ridiculous, and trying to find another sad excuse to remove it. I didn't post the French Reconnaissance. It was actually posted by the user Abshir55 and I looked up the source this is why I didn't personally remove it myself. He stated there is no link for this source and I provided it for him now he's trying to say it's blacklisted but doesn't realize the link isn't posted on the article just the name and page number of the book.


 * Here is the translation.


 * "In year 1097 Hijri ( 1686 gregorian ), reigned the suldan of Hiraab. Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an),


 * Sunday 23 Jumada the first 1112 seven French ships docked at Mogadishu harbour and they want to conquer Mogadishu, they stayed offshore for 11 days. Seven Sheikh's from the men of the two neighborhoods ( Shingaani and Hamarweyne) came together in Sheikh faqih Ahmed ibn faqih Abu Bakr al-Qahtani ibn wa'il ibn Hajar and he was the one that all consulted in all the places, Banadir, and others, and they repelled"


 * It's an oral tradition account that mentions the French invasion of Mogadishu and how they manage to repel them. I hope the dispute has been cleared. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo Copy and paste the Arabic text above it the English translation. The translation you gave makes no sense.

Also Boynamedsue can you ping an arabic reader to verify it? the text he linked.

Thanx Ragnimo (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ragnimo, I don't know what is going on between you two but calm down. The text is perfectly comprehensible, despite a couple of grammatical inaccuracies. There may be need for an Arabic speaking reader to check it whatever, not for the question of whether it is an RS, but for what we should say about the oral tradition. Ayaltimo thank you for that. You are absolutely right that foreign language sources are acceptable in wikipedia, I use them frequently myself. I also find it frustrating when users have a tendency to disregard them. However, Ragnimo is right, it is necessary to provide the original Arabic text as well.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue I am calm, but to me it sounds made up. Especially this part ''Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an)'' and also the rest of it. He said it was oral history, how would oral history have exact dates.

Can you ping an active arab speaking editor? To come check it or else i'll just find one through the Arabic speaking list. Ragnimo (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a name listing descent in the traditional Arabic way. Basically saying "The Imam was [Steve]". I think the "an" is possibly a machine translation glitch. The question of the text is whether it might be a Primary Source, the oral tradition might have a place in the text if named as such if the book is RS. I want the text in Arabic first before I take it to an Arabic speaking user, I am probably going to have to ask them to look at the text around the cited passage as well, so I want to know exactly what I'm going to ask them before I do. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Boynamedsue for explaining and correcting this pitiful user who is using his emotions to judge my translation. The reason why I brought up the past above is because it explains why he is disputing with me. He has personal issues with me, not because of the source. He is just looking for problems. Anyways, I brought the link and the translation of this book. I have an English keyboard so I don't know how to type it in Arabic but I did translate it. Even if I manage to bring the Arabic text here it won't guarantee anything nor will it get you the accurate translation from google because Arabic is not like English. One word could have multiple meanings. This user doesn't know Arabic so he is just wasting my time and your time. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ayaltimo You also need to calm down, and you need to edit the abuse out of the first sentence of your last post. Like I said, I don't care about you two's history. Ok, the link you gave was to an electronic copy of the book, can you not copy paste from that? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi you are an Arabic translating editor, can you check this book:( https://www.docdro id.net/5UGmIFo/the-history-of-somalia-sharif-aydurus-pdf#page=108) on page 108-109  and see if it says anything about french incursion into Mogadishu on year 1686:


 * "In year 1097 Hijri ( 1686 gregorian ), reigned the suldan of Hiraab. Imam was Imam Mohamed ibn imam Ahmed ibn imam Mohamud ibn imam cumar Halol AL-YACQUUBI. an),


 * Sunday 23 Jumada the first 1112 seven French ships docked at Mogadishu harbour and they want to conquer Mogadishu, they stayed offshore for 11 days. Seven Sheikh's from the men of the two neighborhoods ( Shingaani and Hamarweyne) came together in Sheikh faqih Ahmed ibn faqih Abu Bakr al-Qahtani ibn wa'il ibn Hajar and he was the one that all consulted in all the places, Banadir, and others, and they repelled"

Does the Arabic text say this?

Ragnimo (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, here is the Arabic text and its translation:
 * Dr-Taher Thanks a lot, that is really useful. I have a couple of questions, firstly am I correct in thinking that "the Franks" translates "al franj" meaning, generally, Christians from the western Mediterranean or northern Europeans, rather than "the French" (something like "fransawi" I think)? Secondly, what is the general context in which this quote appears, are they the words of the modern author or is he quoting someone else directly? Boynamedsue (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue, Yes, The Arabic word "الإفرنج" (Al-efrnj) or "الفرنجة" (Al-fernjah) is used first to refer to French people, but it is widely used later to refer to any Europeans. This book was written at 1954, The author stated on page 14-pdf that he used references and old documents, and list some of them. The quote is the words of the modern author, not someone else. --Dr-Taher (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again, so in your view it is not possible to state they were French ships, but it is reliable historical evidence for a European incursion in 1701? --Boynamedsue (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr-Taher Thank you so much for taking the time. Your translation and explanation makes more sense. It was probably referring to Europeans in a general manner and not the french like Boynamedsue said. Because there is no search result elsewhere about that. Also does it say that they repulsed them?

Ragnimo (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr-Taher You said later. Sharif Aydurus was quoting a tradition so he could've been referring to the French incursion because there are historical documents of Somalis resisting Portuguese incursion and they never once referred to them as Al-fernjah. He would've used البرتغالية instead since the Portuguese were well known in the Arab world during Ottoman reign. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo How does Somalis resisting portugese incursion relate to the French? Firstly the Portugese incursion is seperate and occured in th 16th century at an earlier date and secondly thats documented in multiple sources even in portugese sources. A french incursion is never mentioned anywhere,  Boynamedsue was kind of enough to look into it and found nothing.

I think it's safe to conclude that Al-Fernajh was referring to Europeans in a general manner.

Ragnimo (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo You still don't get it. The only Portuguese incursion against Somalia happened in the 16th century and they never referred them to as Al-Fernajh in Arabic sources. This is the 17th century where French naval presence was well known in the Indian ocean. Dr-Taher stated (Al-fernjah) is used first to refer to French people, but it is widely used later to refer to any Europeans. Sharif Aydurus was quoting an older oral tradition that mentioned Al-Fernajh so it's very likely they were talking about the French because Franks were known by Muslims since their invasion in France by the caliphate. Franks to describe all of Europeans is a recent term. This oral tradition dates back in 1701. Ayaltimo (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo I don't get what? If you know that the Portugese presecense i seperate, why mention it? The problem with the claim of French incursion in Mogadishu is the lack of sources collaborating it, nothing shows up about it. Whereas if i google Malagasay/Madagascar french naval prescense in the 1700s multiple sources comes up. Specifically this book ''Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion which details the documented prescense of French overseas. Look at the part about Indian ocean no mention of Mogadishu.

The book was written in 1950s and the qoute is the words of the modern author and not someone else as DR Taher pointed out. It safe to conclude it has the modern meaning.

Besides there are other earlier qoutes and sayings from Somalis with the use of 'Ferenji' and it's always interpret to be about Europeans in general. For example

Ragnimo (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo Thank you for showing me the link of Somalis using Ferenji term to describe Europeans. I always thought it meant French but it seems the term can also describe white people in general and because the source is not clear. I will take it down. Thank you. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ayaltimo I thought you made the whole thing up at first and you were trying to troll the page with Original Research. But it looks like it was actually written in the source you listed for it just not about the French. It can remain and you can change it into European incursion instead. We can remove it if you feel the source isn't that clear.

Cheers Ragnimo (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo It's fine. I removed it and thank you for admitting I wasn't trolling. I just thought it would be another valuable Somali history to add but since you proved to me Ferenji term could describe any European there is no reason for the incursion to stay up on that page because it's unclear. I'm honestly a fan of your work and despite being busy I wish to offer some contribution. I hope we can move forward from here, Jazakallah Kheyr. Dr-Taher and Boynamedsue thanks for your help and input. We both reached a middle ground. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fan of my work? lol i actually take back what i said about not trolling. The source isn't clear so it shouldn't stay up. The matter is resolved.

Have a good day Ragnimo (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo Ayaltimo, well done on reaching a resolution. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ragnimo I meant a fan of your contribution to Somali Wikipedia since there aren't many Somali editors that contribute to Somali history. I'm being very genuine. I don't understand why you view me as a troll? Just before you thought I made up the translation but now you know I didn't. I just want to develop Somali pages just as much as you do. Please see it that way and you too have a good day. Ayaltimo (talk) 8:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tropical year
Please see Talk:Tropical year who believes the following may be added without providing a reliable source:

"A more suitable sine wave expression can be found having the same first, second, and third derivatives."

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we combine examples to suggest a pattern even if no RS notes the pattern?
I have a question that came out of this Tucker Carlson discussion []. I'm asking a hypothetical based on the linked discussion thus the characterizations here are not meant to be true to the details in that link. It is not uncommon that an editor adds a criticism to the Carlson (or similar) page where Carlson carefully chooses his words to say something that is true but many would take to mean something else. In this case, a group caused vs participated in the storming of the capitol. Carlson will say something like that, a few RSs will object, an editor decides to add that content to the Carlson page. The adding editor feels this is an emblematic behavior and should be added. The media comments on many things Carlson says, adding this one is UNDE. If we agree this sort of rhetorical slight of hand is used a lot and can think of several examples how can this be added in a OR compliant way? Do we need a RS saying, "Carlson frequently uses rhetorical slight of hand" or can we just say, Carlson has been criticized for using rhetorical slight of hand [examples 1-5]? Can we as editors suggest a pattern if RSs don't say as much. If not, what would be the best way to include these 5 hypothetical examples if no individual example is due? Springee (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to do is to look at the sources and see what patterns they do note. In particular, that source says that "There’s another effort propagated by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, in which he attempts to diminish the idea that white nationalists had a significant presence — or, perhaps, any presence — on that day. His motivations for doing so are complicated. Carlson is sensitive about people being labeled as “white nationalist” after he himself was targeted with the label following various members of his staff being outed for using white nationalist rhetoric and for his own comments about immigration and race. He’s also heavily invested in the idea that allegations of white nationalism are being used as a fraudulent predicate to attack Republicans broadly."  That suggests that the appropriate place to cover this is in a section related to Carlson's treatment of white nationalism. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you proposed a good way to address the content at the article. I don't think it really answers my hypothetical.  The gap being the hypothetical assumes there is no current place in the article for any of the examples (each are undue as stand alone) but together they form a pattern which hasn't been noted in RSs.  Springee (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Aquillion's suggestion is good, and I think the answer to your question is that it would be original research to report a pattern that hasn't been identified by reliable sources. Even if you can find several examples of the behavior in reliable sources, we have no way of knowing if those examples are representative or anomalous. Best to avoid interpretation. pburka (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that when talking BLP, arriving at original research conclusions that are not absolutely stated in the RS is a problem; if this wasn't a BLP, this would be less a concern. There's a very bad slippery slope from allowing such original research involving BLPs that could lead to people using Wikivoice to make inappropriate statements about BLP in trying to find ways to summarize or characterize behavior in this fashion. As Aquillion said, it is best to stick to what the sources actually do try to characterize as patterns as to avoid the OR/slippery slope in Wikivoice. Absent a source that gives that, even if there are numerous examples of, say, "rhetorical slight of hand" - not called as such but examples that no one would question, it would still be inappropriate for WPians to summarize them up as a comment that they are examples of "rehtorical slight of hand" without a source to back that up. --M asem  (t) 23:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In a BLP we need to be extra strict with ourselves. It is vital to avoid any hint of WP:SYNTH.  So, do NOT state (or even imply) connections or conclusions that are not directly made by a source (and attribute that source in text). Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's OR, because it would be reporting your conclusions. Editors' opinions may be wrong or the evidence could be subject to different interpretations. If we use a conclusion in reliable sources then we can assess if it has concensus, majority or minority support. Of course there is no question here, but there are subjects where there would be. The other issue is weight. If no reliable sources report the conclusion then there is no reason we should. The experts have decided that the information is too insignificant to report.
 * One thing we have to beware of is implicit OR. That happens when we start with a conclusion and assemble evidence to support it. The reader then is lead to a conclusion, even though it is not explicitly stated. Some editors say they are just presenting the evidence and letting readers decide. But the same approach can be used to promote fringe views. We could for example add a long list of Democratic or Republican politicians who have been convicted of serious crimes to their respective articles. The implicit conclusion would be that the party was corrupt.
 * It is important to remember that articles are merely supposed to summarize the facts and opinions that appear in reliable sources. Reliable sources may neglect important aspects of a subject, overemphasize others and be generally biased. While it is tempting to correct these failures, it probably wouldn't work in practice as long as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Under existing policy for example, I can rebut a claim that the moonlanding was faked by pointing out that reliable sources treat it as real. I would be out of my depth in addressing the arguments of conspiracy theorists.
 * TFD (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a request to engage in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and "rhetorical sleight of hand" is a very slippery phrase. I'd say no, you need sources that say he does this repeatedly, don't just search MediaMatters for a plethora of articles. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The only way I could see this being OK is if they were the only examples (two unique documents, say). Otherwise it is cherrypicking in order to promote a conclusion (synth).Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

All, thanks for the feedback. This isn't something I want to do, rather I'm often the one who is trying to remove these things as UNDUE. I'm sensitive to the fact that many editors see this as whitewashing and feel that examples similar to this one need to be included because they show a pattern. IE, they look at the edit history and see say 5 examples of similar material being removed as UNDUE and feel, when taken as a sum, those examples are important even if no single example would pass DUE. At the same time, I agree with the above, if outside sources aren't saying this is a pattern then we shouldn't imply or say a pattern exists. Kind of a forest for the trees problem. I think this is particurally true with an article like Tucker Carlson. Almost weekly we have at least a few RSs discussing something Carlson said the day before. A few of those items really are DUE but many aren't. Springee (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably are correct that there are WP:UNDUE issues, but I think the NOR/WP:SYNTH issue is more of a problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)