Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51

Is this OR by synthesis?
Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?
 * "The association between mice and eating cheese appears as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”

My position is that it’s NOT original research: 1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:
 * One of the earliest literary references comes from Heraclitus, who speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water in the Fragments. Plato in the Republic discusses a "healthy state" of simplicity as "a city for pigs" (.

2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, an issue is that the ancient sources are often considered primary for our purposes, so transparent interpretation of them not citing a secondary source is often considered original research, yes.
 * The comparison you gave is not wholly comparable, because it directly quotes Plato, rather than simply stating an uncited interpretation of him in wikivoice, which is more comparable to what you've done. Remsense  诉  20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * And what about the Heraclitus reference? The sentence in wikipedia says that Heraclitus "speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water". It doesn't directly quote him. What the Heraclitus fragment says is actually this: "Swine wash in the mire".
 * I don't interpret Seneca. I just mention the fact that he makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Can anyone dispute that he makes such an association?
 * Vegan416 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that quote seems a bit fishy too. I would be much more comfortable with a secondary attestation in any case: not for OR reasons, but for WP:DUE reasons. Remsense  诉  20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * I don't understand how WP:DUE is relevant here. There is no dispute about the facts here. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here on your side. This sentence about Seneca is not put forward in order to support the idea that mice eat cheese. In fact it appears in the context of a paragraph that describes (based on other sources) that this belief is a myth and mice actually don't eat cheese (unless they have no choice). The sentence about Seneca just gives it an historical background.
 * The sentence about Seneca is also careful not to claim that Seneca himself believed that mice eat cheese, or that it was a common belief in his time. Though these conclusions seem reasonable they indeed do not necessarily logically follow from the source. I was very careful to frame it just as a description of what Seneca makes in his text, which is associating between mice and eating cheese. Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if you just stated the quote it would feel less like OR. The connective clauses may imply that this may be the earliest time such an association was made, or something else other than the plain existence of the historical statement itself. This editorial stuff is murky, which is why we like to lean on secondary sources. Remsense  诉  20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * I can of course also give it up. I have no stakes in this fact being mentioned in wikipedia. But I'm trying to understand the definition of "original research".
 * What do you think about the following option: "The association between mice and eating cheese appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”? [that BTW was the original version, I changed it because it sounded too cumbersome]
 * Your suggestion is something like this: "Seneca in the first century AD mentions that 'a mouse nibbles cheese'"?
 * Vegan416 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You can never give up, I won't allow it.
 * That reads significantly better, but I would still be more comfortable with
 * This, yes.
 * Remsense 诉  21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * Ok. So the full paragraph might be something like that:
 * In the first century AD, Seneca mentioned that "a mouse eats cheese". Today many people believe that mice are particularly fond of cheese. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.
 * BTW, all the other sentences are already supported by other sources without dispute. The dispute was only about the first one. Vegan416 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There'd be no OR claims that I can see, but it'd still help to have a secondary source establish DUEness. Remsense  诉  21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * I don't understand how DUEness is relevant here. There are no conflicting opinions whether Seneca said that or not. There is unanimous agreement that this source is authentic. You can read the preface written for this prestigious edition of Loeb Classic Library. Vegan416 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, let's say (to be symmetrical with your comparison above) that the article is Mice in culture. That's "in culture", not List of mice traits by earliest mention. So, there's a cultural provenance aspect that has an element of WP:DUEness. Remsense  诉  22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * I still do not understand. In my understanding DUE means giving the due weight to different views according to their prominence in case there are different views on a question. Such as the example given there - not to give equal weight (or any weight) to flat earth theory as a "scientific" theory opposed to spherical earth view. What are the conflicting views in this case? What is the minority view and the majority view that I don't give the right weight to? Vegan416 (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's about prominence of ideas in general, not just opposing ones in a debate. Remsense  诉  13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * Isn't Seneca prominent enough?
 * So according to you without secondary sources the Heraclitus reference in Pigs in culture is also UNDUE? Vegan416 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources cannot generally attest their own importance. Plenty of important works contain unimportant statements. That's why we, as a tertiary source, use secondary sources. Remsense  诉  15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * OK.
 * Would you think that this is a reliable secondary source for this info?
 * http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/09/mice-dont-like-cheese/
 * They do seem to get a high rating here:
 * https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/today-i-found-out/ Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't generally consider TodayIFoundOut a reliable source, see this discussion. I also really dislike those bias fact-checking outlets, I think they largely do more harm than good for peoples' media literacy. Remsense  诉  15:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense
 * Here is an interesting twist. This pseudo syllogism of Seneca involving mice and eating cheese is actually prominent in the sense that it had been mentioned and discussed in several scholarly articles. For example here
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44029555
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44079814
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251454
 * But all these articles discuss it in the context of logics and humor, and not in the context of the feeding habits of mice. So I suppose this is not good enough for you? Vegan416 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vegan416 it’s a DUE issue because a citation to a primary source gives no indication as to why it matters this source talked about mice and cheese. Mach61 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mach61
 * I don't understand you point. But maybe it will be clearer if you see the full context. It's something like this:
 * “Today it is very common to associate mice with eating cheese. This association appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.” Vegan416 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be reliable. Is someone saying they can’t? Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar@Remsense
 * Actually all primary sources are OK as sources for simple claims about their content that can be verified by a non-expert by simply reading the source. This is official wikipedia policy here "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". In my opinion this is clearly the case here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DUE does not mean that something can be sourced, it is about determining what sourced information belongs in the article. IOW do any reliable sources note that Seneca wrote about mice and cheese? If not then inclusion is UNDUE. You will appreciate that articles are not an accumulation of every fact available, but need to focus on what is most important which is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While primary sources have their uses, in this case, you went beyond what the primary source says. The author is not creating an association between mice and eating cheese, all they are doing is giving an example of how one can play games with words. I'm not saying that there was no such association back then, but the text does not allow us to reach any conclusion in this regard (one way or the other). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton
 * I disagree. When Seneca says "a mouse eats cheese" he most definitely makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Of course he was not writing here an essay about the feeding habits of mice, but rather he demonstrates some sort of logical fallacy, and his use of the mice feeding habits was as a random example for his demonstration. But that doesn't stop it from being a testimony to the existence of an association between mice and eating cheese, at least in Seneca's mind, and I didn't claim anything more than that. Vegan416 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He said it and that's all we can say. He didn't make any association, in fact, he could have said "dances in the prairie" instead of "eats cheese" and it wouldn't have changed anything to his example. M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton
 * First of all when anyone says that a mouse eats cheese he associates mouse and eating cheese, even in the most technical sense. That's obvious. Second your argument actually proves that Seneca had a preconceived association in his mind between mice and eating cheese. Like you said, for his example he could attribute any other random action to mice and it would have worked just as well, so why did he choose this behavior if not because it was his association? Vegan416 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * so why did he choose this behavior I don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton
 * But I do know. People choose this kind of things based on their preconceived associations. Vegan416 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR (unless you can prove, using RS, that his choice was based on a preconceived association). M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton
 * Nope. That's tautology. Anything a person says is based on what's in his brain/mind. How can you seriously deny that? Vegan416 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't intend on repeating what I said. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It definitely is not original research to note that Seneca said this (we have multiple sources noting that he did so). As to the Due weight/relevance issue (ie: should a specific article mention that Seneca said this)… that is a different question and should be decided by consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material
A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * At issue is the interpretation of an ABC article. For reference the Libertarian Party (Australia) were previously called Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). In the newspaper article they're referred to simply as Liberal Democrats.
 * From the article are two key paragraphs which read:
 * "It comes after One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc in WA's Upper House, giving it huge power in a chamber where the McGowan Government will have to rely on external support to pass legislation.
 * One Nation's three successful candidates will be sworn in as MPs next week, after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse."
 * I find it clear that the first paragraph I quote directly leads directly into the second. Thus when it is talked about in the first paragraph that "One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPathtalk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

OR redirect page titles
What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?

For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it really depends on the nature of the connection, but usually leaning on the side of 'keep'—given that redirects are meant to be navigation aids primarily. As you know, WP:RFD is full of cases where the usefulness or harmfulness of redirects are discussed in this terms. Remsense  诉  09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of antisemitism
The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage - verbage like "weaponization" isn't something you'd see much in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those articles where the neutrality and the quality of the sourcing will always be disputed by someone. I'm not criticizing you for bringing it up here, mind, but I think it will always be troublesome. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Cite 1 on the page is How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Selfstudier, the source you cited is a paragraph within Consonni's section in the Routledge handbook that includes the phrase and some other descriptors. Although she appears to only use the phrase once, I don't believe that any editor has tagged that source for problems. Perhaps her usage of it should be described within the article, instead of only cited in the first sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

2004 European Parliament election
On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.

The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.

I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Debate on the monarchy in Canada
This seems to be full of syth and making generalizations from random articles and quotes, i'm not really sure how what the best way to deal with it is—blindlynx 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on an RfC relating to proposal of addition of new section to LiveJasmin page
Please comment on whether the proposed section here Talk:LiveJasmin should be included in the page. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Polling at Republicanism in Canada
A dispute has been ongoing for nearly a month at Talk:Republicanism in Canada regarding the insertion into the article of information regarding polls on the Canadian monarchy. There seems to be agreement that no one should engage in WP:SYNTH. However, there's either unawareness or misinterpretation of what "no synthesis" means. An appeal for more editors to get involved was made at WP:CANADA; however, few have jumped in. Input from those who're active here would be appreciated. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CALC, realistic verifiability, and large sets of data
I have tagged "Overview / Statewide" section of 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California because I don't think it is verifiable. The tag was removed, citing WP:CALC.

The table includes several columns. One is "votes", which totals the number of votes for all candidates of each party. While this totaling is "basic arithmetic ... such as adding numbers" (from WP:CALC) from referenced sources, my argument is that the verifiability requirement is still not met. No reference is offered that verifies these numbers.

Instead, verification must proceed by examining the votes receive by each candidate for each of 50 districts. There are three to five candidates, or so, for each of those districts -- so something like 240 numbers must be found and summed to verify the totals here.

Additional columns count candidates from each district, then break those down by the number of contested seats and number of candidates advancing. These require more counts and comparisons spread again over the 52 districts.

This is far more converting from one unit to another, or summing even a couple dozen values from the same source in the same table. Here, the values are spread across a giant article, all from different specific sources, and are aggregated into different categories.

Is such a lengthy and tedious process in this state "verifiable"? Does it still qualify as a "basic arithmetic"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Although long-winded it does seem to be covered by WP:CALC. If they are the totals of the data from the separate districts (and the separate districts are sourced) then a+b+c+d+e+f+.... is a tedious but not complex calculation. So the information isn't OR, but I'd agree verification is a pain (but verification doesn't have to be easy). This might not be the case if the figures where coming from different sources but ultimately these all come from the same source. If all the candidates where in a single table then the sum of votes and count of candidates (and candidates that advanced) would be simple. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the question comes down to two things: the reliability of the source that the original numbers come from, and the transparency of the method. If the original numbers are legitimate and it's clear how to check the accuracy of the person's work, I think it's OK, even if checking it is a tedious job.
 * I also think that the fact you're asking about this might mean that it could have been done by an easier-to-understand method. However, sometimes there is no such other method. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Original research in biography
In general, when editing a biography of a person who died many years ago, should I ruthlessly delete all material marked as personal research, even if that material does not appear controversial? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @TooManyFingers No, you should use your editorial judgement depending on the context. See WP:PRESERVE. WP-best is to make an effort to find WP:RS, cite those and possibly rewrite depending on what you find, and, if you can't find anything, content removal or tagging may be the thing to do. Other editors may object to whatever you decide, but that's part of life here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Absurd demand?
This is about. IMHO, the demand that "quite conservative" and "mainstream" should be found verbatim in the WP:RS is absurd. We render the meaning of the WP:RS, we don't closely paraphrase it. The deletion is taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should wait more than 15 minutes for a reply on the relevant talk page before launching a noticeboard discussion. This is unproductive and raises questions of intention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that part of the WP:RULES? Could you provide a verbatim quote that it is a broadly accepted behavioral standard at en.wiki? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply there was:
 * Which in no way addressed taking WP:OR to absurd extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG: No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. This is not a meta-discussion: you inserted content not in the source. You could have weakly argued it was appropriate per WP:BLUESKY (if this wasn't a contestable claim about a living person). ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * is a disputed claim, namely that you take WP:OR to absurd extent.
 * You argue about particular words, I argue about meaning. Apples and oranges. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, TG. How does the source support the meaning of "quite conservative" and "mainstream"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not defending a particular wording, but the WP:RS makes the following points:
 * Dever is a conservative archaeologist;
 * archaeologists more conservative than Dever do apologetics, not historiography.
 * In other words: Dever is a conservative archaeologist who can be taken seriously, there are archaeologists more conservative than him, but they cannot be taken seriously. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How does the RS make the point that Dever is a conservative archaeologist? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks ok to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks ok to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Muqatta'at original contribution
The article on Muqatta'at, the disconnected letters at the beginnings of several chapters of the Qur'an, has received a large addition connecting these letters with the Tarot and ancient Egypt. At first there were no references, and the addition was therefore deleted. It was restored with footnotes referring in every case to other Wikipedia articles. The material was therefore deleted again, with the explanation that Wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources. The material was again restored, with the statement that the references must be accepted. To complicate matters, the contributor seems to believe himself to be the Mahdi (his name is a form of that word). The contributor has now reverted three deletes, and seems determined to persevere. Can anyone calm this situation, or must we freeze the article? J S Ayer (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Remsense, Sir: Thank you! J S Ayer (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source only gives one out of three examples
I was discussing some edits in the Min Hee-Jin talk page after various reversion. Specifically the first controversies section. Please note that we reached a consensus after I took the time to talk to everybody and rewrite it but I am still curious about the proper procedure.

The first reliable source of the section is refering to twitter users commenting on instagram posts (since deleted) of Min Hee-Jin where you would be able to see her apartement. She was accused of being inspired by sexual media with minors. The Reliable source only mention one of the movies you could see on her walls. I added all of them to the section. They were reverted as "unsourced". Even if those posts are fabricated, they are archived on archive.org but I think on a static page only, how is the one explicitely mentioned in the article different in status from the others? The article is referring to a twitter discussion and picking one movie just for space or editorial reasons. Is adding the other movies referenced by the twitter users screenshots of instagram an "original research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Is mere observation original research?
If a scientist conducts scientific research by experiment about something he should not include the results in a WP article unless possibly he publishes it in a learned periodical first especially if that magazine article is reviewed by other scientists. That I can understand. If a historian researches a subject he cannot include his own conclusions in a WP article unless they agree with earlier research. If for instance the research is into the causes of the Second World War, if he agrees with say AJP Taylor's conclusions he can cite Taylor's works in the same way as he can cite facts included in Taylor's books. However he cannot cite something he finds in an unpublished diary letter or speech of Adolf Hitler or Neville Chamberlain. If the speech, letter or diary is published as a complete document-perhaps in a book of collected correspondence or a single web published page on say a University website. That I can understand. If a WP page mentions a particular building with which I am familiar and perhaps see every week and that building is demolished or changes its use can I change the WP article or is it called "original research." .There is a published source about the building but saying it exists or has a particular use, but this has not been updated. A sourced WP article says e.g."there is a post office at Smallville" but there is no source to say the Smallville Post Office has been demolished or has been turned into a private house. Can a resident of Smallville .correct the article to say so or simply delete the sentence about it? This can be verified by anybody that visits Smallville. This is mere observation rather than research. No special scientific or historian's skill involved. I have encountered this sort of situation on a number of occasions and it has been difficult to find sources and sometimes the information has been indirect such as a directory that does not include any mention of the building.. . Spinney Hill (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As a matter of frank practicality, stuff like this is occasionally necessary, although of course nobody likes it. It is nearly always possible to find something serving as proof that the thing is or isn't the case, so in most cases that can be done. Generally, this is meant to be encompassed within the concept of notability (e.g. if there are no sources reporting on the fact that a person who has died, were they that notable in the first place?) but edge cases do happen sometimes. jp×g🗯️ 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes. Long answer: its a grey area but something would have to be published... But even a demolition or construction notice nailed to a light post would count. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In most cases, I would have no problem with an editor adding such mundane observations… BUT… if some other editor objects and says we need a source, we should leave it out until the required source is found. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not just a question of notability. In my scenario the district or town is the notable thing. Its the subject of the article but the building that is demolished or changes its use is not of itself notable but was quite properly included in the article as part of the description of the town. If its not there it shouldn't be included.. I'll give another example. This time it is specific.
 * The village of Cogenhoe, Northamptonshire has a wp article. There is a gravel quarry there which has been dug in the last 5 years. I have found no printed or internet source for this but I have seen it. Any sighted person who walks along a particular road or a number of footpaths can do the same and verify this. There will be a planning permission at the local authority offices which can be inspected by the public (I think) but it won't necessarily be printed in the local paper. I have searched the paper's website. I have searched the gravel company's website. In any case the permission will not state that the quarrying has actually been started, only that permission to quarry has been given.. . Spinney Hill (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly that seems to be getting more into WP:DUE and WP:NOT than a question about OR. Why does the article need to mention the quarry? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is a major part of the landscape, an important part of the geography of the place in all senses and will in time be part of the local history. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then in time it will be included on the wikipedia page. There is no rush and no reason to include it today. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I edit in areas like this (on English places) and I have used planning applications as a reference in some instances where I have found absolutely nothing else. I admit that this is a "last resort" option.  Most council planning websites have dynamic URLs (not sure if that's the right technical term!) which mean individual documents (decision notices, officers' reports etc.: stuff that would confirm demolitions etc.) can't be cited directly; so I tend to create a simple reference consisting of the planning application reference, date, address and then the title of the planning application as a quote. In terms of verifiability, somebody checking the reference could then go to the local authority's planning website and search for the application reference.  No ref template used: it just goes between ref tags.  See reference number 235 here for an example.  I always intend such references to be placeholders until I can find something more useful.  <b style="color: #00BFFF;">Hassocks</b> 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this about the correct quarry? Seems like a viable ref for the planning of it. DMacks (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the volatility of the URL, you can archive the current page at archive.org then include the archive address as part of the citation. Zerotalk 01:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Significant unreferenced additions by one user
In September and October 2022, added sections to several dozen articles about the composition and redistricting of different congressional districts. These sections include population information without any citation for the numbers given, and no timestamp information for when the observation might have been made. Further, they don't contain any references for the definition of the district boundaries, so the towns and cities claimed for the districts are also not verifiable.

How can this material best be corrected? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think in such a case (dozens of articles about a political topic) it's important to first try to figure out whether that editor was (a) working in good faith but not finishing the job correctly, (b) inserting garbage to disrupt Wikipedia (i.e. vandalism), or (c) systematically lying to advance some agenda.
 * If it is possible to look these things up somewhere reliable, and if it turns out that the editor was telling the truth, then cleaning up the editor's work and providing the missing references is enough. (Along with putting a note on their user talk page, if appropriate.) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you check out this, if you want to verify his work. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Anna Panagiotopoulou original research
In the article Anna Panagiotopoulou the User:KNIM123 insists - contrary to all reliable secondary sources - on putting as the year of birth of the actress,  his own information, as he clearly states on his talk page. The conversation was made in greek but and here is the translation. ''I know it personally. His name is not Damoulakos, but Damoulakis. And as a source there is an article about her funeral that mentions the name Dimitris Damoulakis as her son. Also, she was born in 1945, not 1947, the electoral registers verify this, citing the following information on the Ministry of Interior's "Find out where you vote" platform: DAMOULAKI ANNA ANDREAS ANDREAS 1945.'' Please restore my edition D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi
Two years ago I removed a large amount (~74,000 bytes) of original research and fringe views (I will notify WP:FTN of this thread) from Safa Khulusi. A somewhat longish (sorry!) explanation and diffs of the removals at Talk:Safa Khulusi. Basically, the article was using Khulusi's own writings to present his (fringe) views as facts, and more generally providing an evaluation of Khulusi's work without any secondary sources.

Recently, a new single-purpose account has repeatedly reinstated  the last revision before my removals two year ago (cf. ). They refuse to discuss at the article talk.

Which revision should the article feature, StopTheV4dals's reinstatement of the old one or my pruned revision of the last two years ? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that the attempt to restore blatant WP:OR to the article is ongoing. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * I have warned the user that I will block if they revert again. (That's assuming that I'm awake for it. If not, I expect somebody else will.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC).

Original research at Mulatto
User @MonsenorNouel is including the unsourced claim that "Brazil has the largest mulatto population in the world". None of the "sources" he provided explicitly state the claim. He is doing WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and therefore the claim must be removed. Some of the sources include blog posts, a link to a book store, and book titles with no page given whatsoever. Torimem (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating a truth table from law
As mentioned at Talk:Ages of consent in the United States, I have derived a truth table from the law regarding age of consent in the state of Washington. The source of this table can either be the actual laws 9A.44.073 - 093 or the Bill analysis. Would this truth table be origional research?

Legend
✅ Permissible

❌ Not permissible

Permissible when the younger person's birth day and month is before the older person's

Subanark (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if your chart violates our WP:Original research policy… but I would be concerned that the chart over-simplifies a topic that is usually FAR more nuanced than any simple chart could convey. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The section of the law that covers the actual age is usually pretty simple; Washington state is unusual in that it is mildly complex. The choice right now is either to have the complex rules as is, replace the section with a "It is complicated" or similar language, remove the section or provide an alternate way of representing the data (e.g. a chart). A decision was recently made to remove the section on the grounds that it is better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not.
 * The chart is only covering this section (from the analysis):
 * "A person commits a first degree offense if the victim is younger than 12 years old and, for Rape of a Child, the perpetrator is at least 24 months older than the victim, or, for Child Molestation, is at least 36 months older; a second degree offense if the victim is 12 or 13 years old and the perpetrator is at least 36 months older than the victim; and a third degree offense if the victim is 14 or 15 years old and the perpetrator is at least 48 months older than the victim." Subanark (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is original research, given that it can be extremely easily checked against the text of the law, but it does seem like kind of a gigantic table that may not be warranted in the article. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * easily checked against the text of the law isn't good enough. Lots of laws appear to say something obvious, but what if there is another law that interacts with it in some way in some scenarios? It's dangerous territory. If we're going to put a big green tick against something and label it permissible (particularly something controversial, and particularly something that would be highly illegal in nearby similar jurisdictions), I'd want to see a reliable secondary source state unambiguously and explicitly that this is the correct interpretation of the law. I'm also more than a little skeptical that "will not prosecute" equates to "A-OK, go right ahead" (which is what a big green tick usually signifies), if the language of the law still refers to one party as a victim. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess having the boxes be red and green is probably bad. Oh well. I have to admit I have not really given this issue a whole lot of thought; it sounds kind of complicated. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 09:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea... I've been waiting on a response from the Washington Department of Health for a while now. Previously they laid out the law pretty concisely in the simplest case, but have taken down the page that had this information around the beginning of 2024. It was unclear is this information was removed due to being a mistake, or as a casualty of some other information on that page that wasn't appropriate. I am considering just using "it's not clear" or similar verbiage. Subanark (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Deriving a truth table" is blatant OR, and beyond that I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the entire Ages of consent in the United States article and many of the sources it uses.
 * better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not – WHAT??? No, if you don't have a first-class source laying out exactly the answer, then it's better to say nothing at all.
 * The table's entry for Alaska is sourced to a website hosted (weirdly enough, given the topic) as "touchandgo.com" and describing itself thus:
 * Welcome to the Alaska Legal Resource Center, which is dedicated to providing free access to public legal resources, such as case law, court rules, statutes and regulations. Provided by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc, your computer consultant and Bright Solutions, Computer Forensic Experts. This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business. Last Modified 12/10/2007.
 * The Last Modified 12/10/2007 bit might explain why that same page also provides handy links to Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, two of whom are dead (Stevens since 2010). The entire site is a zombie trapped in a time warp from twenty years ago, and that's what you're drawing on to tell our readers who the can have sex with and still stay out of prison? Are you kidding? And to be clear, such a source wouldn't be a reliable one even if it were nominally up to date.
 * The Rhode Island entry is sourced (in part) to Humphrey Law Offices ... Rhode Island Statutory Rape Defense Attorney ... Have you been accused of statutory rape? – once again: are you kidding?
 * What has obviously happened is that the desire to have a complete table for all fifty states has led to scraping the bottom of the sources barrel in some cases. I'm sorry, but I think a complete review of all the sources is needed, and many of the table entries need to be changed to "Uncertain" or something. Or maybe even something more radical is needed -- something close to WP:TNT. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should consider putting your concerns in the talk page for the article?
 * I find it unfortunate that we might need to remain vague on such topic, since if Wikipedia does not have a good answer the next best search engine hits are frequently out of date.
 * As far as the "better to error on the side of saying something is illegal than not" statement goes. In Washington state, if you say the age of consent is 16, it is mostly true, but there are exceptions on both the side of when it can legal at a younger age, and exceptions where it is illegal at an older age. Is it better not to discuss any of these exceptions? Subanark (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be dispensing information that we know or suspect may be in error, regardless of the direction of the potential error. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru
Hi, this is about. Please chime in.

Meaning: smacks of a priori reasoning. But we have 9 (nine) WP:RS that his defense pleaded he is legally insane during his extradition trial. So, empirical reality goes against her a priori reasoning. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

&mdash;again, how would Mr. Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024? Is he a psychic? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Güns
Is this considered WP:OR?

Example:
 * "Ottoman military action, however, was considerably less glorious than the triumphal arches and panoply that marked the sultan's progress. Impeded by heavy rain, Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna. Ibrahim Pasha committed the water-logged army to a siege of the small fortress of Koszeg (Guns), 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, but by the time the defenders surrendered, the campaigning season was past." --Prophecy and Politics in Istanbul: Charles V, Sultan Suleyman, and the Habsburg Embassy of 1533-1534, "Journal of Early Modern History", Robert Finlay, page 13

Another example:
 * "At one small fortress on the Austrian border, Günns (modern Koszeg, c.100 km south-east of Vienna), the entire Turkish army, some 100,000 regular troops, was held up by a garrison of less than 800 men." --"The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany", Gregory J. Miller(Professor of History at Malone University), page 36.

How about this:
 * "On the siege of Guns..[..].. see the very useful survey of events by Gertrud Gerhartl, "Die Niederlage der Turken em Steinfeld (1532)", who also believes however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers...." --The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, Volume III, Kenneth Meyer Setton, 365.

Can we place in the infobox of the article that Suleiman had an army of 100,000/200,000 men? Or is this considered WP:OR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The only useful and verifiable source I see is from Miller. Finlay gives a number at a different place (which means it doesn't directly and explicitly support any claims for the Siege of Güns). Setton attributes a number to a source from 1532 without any strong indication that he agrees with that number. I do question the phrasing of the Miller source, though; he almost makes it sound like the 800 men besieged or obstructed the 100,000. That's a minor quibble, however. If no other historians agree with Miller, then the citation should be attributed as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gerhartl source isn't from 1532, it was published in 1974. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely correct about the "1532" part, and I've struck that. I still don't see Setton giving much credence to those numbers. He begins the footnote with Numbers seem to have had little meaning for the sixteenth-century mind, before mentioning a source that gives 200,000 vs. 700,000. Setton then mentions Gerhartl's survey but says he also believes, however, that Suleiman's army consisted of 200,000 soldiers. To me, that "however" is Setton saying "this scholar put together a useful outline but even he's overestimating the numbers". Otherwise, why mention them only in a footnote about wildly inflated numbers? Woodroar (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Woodroar, while I mostly agree with you, I would say Finlay is usable. It describes the army at least at the inception of the siege, so for me, that would support the 100,000 man figure.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ, however.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I will say that the Finlay source and our own article (Siege of Güns) gives a little more context than what's above, which perhaps explains why Finlay doesn't come out and say 100,000 men were at the siege. (I can get into that if you're interested.) But it's the same number as Miller so it may not be worth the spoons arguing about it. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Finlay is the only source that gives an estimate for the specific event. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not Original Research to use numbers found in external sources (It would only be OR if we used our own calculation or analysis). That does not mean the numbers given in the sources are necessarily reliable (or at least reliable enough for an infobox).  This strikes me as something that needs attribution… and you can’t do that in an infobox. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR?
A number of Muslim Islamic scholars (including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm (994-1064)), believe that belief in Jinn (supernatural beings, the origin of Genies) is essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. I want to add two more scholars (Abul A'la Maududi (1903-1979) and Fethullah Gülen (1941-), on the basis of what they have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly work ... on the same lines. Would it be okay to add such names as WP:SUMMARY in the list or would that be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (with assistance of User:Bookku)


 * IMO revisit section heading too.
 * May be you can try some thing like 'Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR?' &#32;Bookku   (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OR is a policy for editors editing Wikipedia. It usually doesn't apply to outside researchers, academics, historians etc. who may publish work based on their own research. Has the scholarly work of the two scholars in question been published in WP:RS? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry there still may be some confusion remained in framing the question. The question is not whether a scholar can engage in OR in his/her own scholarly work. Let me try again.
 * Say four scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP are of equal standing and their works are RS to Wikipedia.
 * On the basis of their individual scholarly works we can write scholar ABCD believe in specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholar PQRS believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholar EFGH believe in in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Also scholars MNOP believe in in the same specific philosophical side XYZ.
 * 1) So whether forming single sentence saying "Scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP, all four, believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ" will be acceptable sentence even though we do not have fifth scholar (i.e. one more independent)  saying so, or would that be considered synthesis?


 * 2) Here in this case present sentence in the article Jinn is on the line like: ".. many ... scholars, including ... scholar ABCD and the ... scholar PQRS, believe in specific philosophical side XYZ."  For this kind of sentence luckily a specific RS is available from independent author mentioning scholar ABCD and the  scholar PQRS believe XYZ.
 * Say you wish to add two more notable author names 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' on the basis what they too have clearly written in their own (RS) scholarly that they too believe in the same specific philosophical side XYZ. Though yet not covered as such by one more independent scholar saying 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' believe XYZ.
 * Here the question is if, anyways scholars 'EFGH', and 'MNOP' too  believe in the same 'XYZ', then why not add them in the same sentence which state  scholar ABCD and the scholar PQRS believe 'XYZ'? &#32;Bookku (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A request to share inputs in this discussion has been made @ WP:Teahouse &#32;Bookku   (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mere juxtaposition of information from different sources is not OR if no additional conclusion is being drawn or implied. After all, that's what our entire articles are supposed to consist of. So your sentence in (1) is perfectly OK if I understand the question. In (2), beware of "many" as some will argue that 4 is not many given that there have been thousands of commentators on Islamic law. Using "several" or "some" would be better, and if there are reliable sources with an opposite opinion mentioning them as well would satisfy NPOV better. Zerotalk 04:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the vast majority of Muslims believe that believing in the jinn is necessary, since they are mentioned in the Qur’an and authentic hadiths, but User:Louis P. Boog would like to mention some Muslim scholars, just for example.TheEagle107 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating the facts but only the Wikipedia rules. If there is a reliable source using "most" it is allowed for us to use it too. However we aren't allowed to judge "most" by ourselves. I didn't look at the sources so I don't know which of these is true. Zerotalk 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems perfectly acceptable to me. If anything, it is a very mild (and acceptable) form of SYNTH, not OR. Toadspike   [Talk]  17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, um ... SYNTH is a species of OR. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. I still don't think the claim suggested by Louis is problematic, and this seems to be the consensus of this entire discussion (which I now realize continues far below this point on the page). Toadspike   [Talk]  17:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability refers to whether or not an article should be written about someone, not whether their opinions belong in an article. For example, Meloni is a notable person, but not every article should present her views.
 * You need to show the relevance of the opinions in reliable sources and give them the same weight that they do. And if they have no weight in reliable sources, they don't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Inputs from Maproom and rest)

 * I've been invited here in a posting at the Teahouse. I'm puzzled by the thread. It's a debate about whether some claim counts as "original research", but I can't figure out what claim. Maybe it's one of these:
 * Jinns exist.
 * Devout Muslims believe that Jinns exist.
 * Hanbalī and others believed that Jinns exist.
 * Hanbalī and others stated that devout Muslims believe that Jinns exist.
 * While I don't know, I can't usefully contribute to the discussion. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Maproom, Thanks for your response. It will be always good to have more views. I am my self in discussion facilitator role @ Talk:Jinn. Up til now both sides are taking discussion ahead in good structured manner. Let me try to explain you once again.

The brief of main Talk:Jinn discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration.
 * At Talk:Jinn discussion User:VFF's two concerns one was referred at WP:RSN the second OR one is referred here.

Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran.


 * This sentence is supported in the article by Ref: Nünlist, Tobias. Dämonenglaube Im Islam. Germany, Walter De Gruyter Incorporated, p.33.
 * Tobias Nünlist is independent RS acceptable to both side referring to two scholars Hanbalī, ibn Taymiyya in above sentence. There is no disagreement up til here.


 * User LPB wishes to add two more scholar names Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen in the same above sentence. But there is no independent RS like Tobias Nünlist. So User VFF says adding Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen amounts to OR, where as user LPB says Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen are scholars in their own standing and references from their own book should be sufficient as RS. Hence section heading is titled, and main question is Notable scholar's i.e. Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's  own works acceptable or OR? for the given purpose.


 * Personally I have not weighed on Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen own books since these two authors are WP:DUE or not will be for main proposed RfC to decide; my role is discussion facilitator hence above I presented hypothetical case of  "Scholars ABCD, PQRS, EFGH and MNOP" for juxtaposition. Your and other user inputs will be helpful for users who would participate in main RfC (@ Talk:Jinn) tentatively planned after closure of this discussion. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Maproom. I'd also like to thank you and encourage you to weigh in. Maybe I can simplify the issue. To be a true Muslim many Muslims believe it is not only necessary to believe There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his prophet but some other points of doctrine as well — for example, the "six articles of Islamic faith" (which include the belief in the existence and oneness of God, the existence of angels, etc.). For a number of Islamic scholars another point of doctrine is the existence of Jinn, because they are mentioned in the Quran. The wikipedia article on Jinn mentions two scholars who say this (ibn Taymiyya and ibn Hazm), and I want to add two more (Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen).
 * Ok, I'll weigh in. Disclaimer: I know very little of the tenets of Islam. I have looked at No original research, and have observed how it's applied.
 * In Wikipedia, OR refers to research done by the editor making the claim.
 * If someone studies ants, and adds to an article the statement "some ants have eight legs", that is OR, and is not acceptable.
 * If someone cites reliable and uncontested sources, in support of the claim "All Muslims believe that God exists", that's fine. If someone cites a published work by Richard Dawkins, in support of the claim "Dawkins believes that no God exists", that's fine. If someone cites all those sources, in support of the claim "Dawkins is not a Muslim", that is synthesis, a form of OR. He has put two facts together and formed his own conclusion. That is not acceptable.
 * So: citing A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen in support of the claim "some notable scholars have stated that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith" is not OR. It may be overkill to cite four scholars in support of that claim, but it is not OR. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * But I am including them on the basis of THEIR saying this (Jinn are real invisible beings and not a metaphor) in their writings, and not a THIRD PERSON WP:RS saying so in a commentary. There is not dispute (AFAIK) that the two scholars are notable or that their writings quoted are their own, but is quoting THEM (and not a third person) OR? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Their writing it in a published source is evidence that they believe it. You don't need another source to say that they wrote it, and it's certainly not OR. Another example of "a published source says what it says, no need for independent sources" is the "plot" section of e.g. David Copperfield. It cites no sources. You can verify it by reading the book. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Any similar previous discussions?
Can someone pl. help in finding  previous discussions, similar to the case discussed in this section above, from archives of this notice board or any other discussion, if possible? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Since some users dealing first time to such question seem to find the question complex, or difficult to understand. It's much likely that similar issue would have been discussed and some old timers may be aware or at least able to get into the nitty-gritty. Below I could collate few old discussions and active old timers of this notice board from xtools. If user of either side of discussion wishes to request more inputs from them then in case you ping then ping all active ones from following. Finding exact similar instantaneously from archives or talk pages is huge task, but in archives I could have few following discussions where users seem discussing some complex aspects:
 * No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15
 * No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51
 * No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 6

From this xtools still active among most active users on this notice board: User:Blueboar User:The Four Deuces, User:Viriditas, User:Doug Weller, User:Masem

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To anwswer User:Louis P. Boog's question: No, it's not OR if you paraphrase the views and statements by Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen from their own with in-text attribution. You might however violate the principle of WP:due weight by doing so, since both are not independent secondary sources. Sources that engage in exegesis within the framework of their own faith are always to be considered primary sources for Wikipedia being an indepedent encyclopedia, even if these sources are considered secondary sources within the framework of their own faith since they base their exegesis on a thorough review of earlier Islamic scholarship.
 * The mention of Ibn Taymiyya is based on a independent secondary source (Nünlist), so this is unproblematic since Wikipedia reflects. If there is however no independent source that presents a specific viewpoint of a specific Islamic scholar (here: Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's views on the importance of the belief in the existence of Jinns), why should we do so? By doing so, we don't reflect, but rather promote that specific viewpoint by giving it more space here than it has ever received in the relevant literature that we base our encyclopedia on.
 * This is not necessarily a hard rule. Consensus and editorial judgement can still come to a different result, e.g. when multiple other viewpoints by the same religious scholar are widely cited in independent sources, which indicates that their voice is relevant within their field. But of course, it would be much better if the relevance of Abul A'la Maududi and Fethullah Gülen's views on this matter is evidenced by an independent secondary source that cites/mentions them. –Austronesier (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To reply to Austronesier, But if a search of JSTOR yields 310 hits for Abul A'la Maududi and 592 results for Fethullah Gülen, that may indicate the notability of those scholars/preachers but is not allowed because it is WP:SYNTH, right? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no element of original research on our part if we mention them, therefore it's only a matter of due weight, not WP:SYNTH (and other OR-issues). Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns?
 * The JSTOR count is only partially helpful especially in the case of Gülen. Many of the sources in the search result most probably don't cover such theological details, but more likely discuss the sociopolitical impact of Gülen and his movement. –Austronesier (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you already specifically tried to find a secondary source that talks about their views on the belief in jinns? Yes I have. Commentators on Maududi and Gülen mostly seem interested in their influence on Pakistan and Turkey respectively, which at certain times was considerable. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the question to discuss here is WP:UNDUE not WP:OR. It is not WP:OR to note that these two scholars said what they said… it might be WP:UNDUE to note that they said it. (I am not familiar enough with the topic to fully judge, but the 600 year gap between ibn Taymiyya and the two more modern scholars in question makes me suspicious… if the existence of Jinn was central to Islam, surely other scholars would have talked about this in the interim?) Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

While my expertise in Islamic scholarship is very limited, I think its safe to say that ibn Taymiyya is mentioned because he is a celebrated scholar. the two more modern scholars are mentioned because they indicate that to a large extent current pious opinion has not changed greatly, of course it remains to be seen how well respect for their scholarship will withstand the test of time.
 * 600 year gap. Bear in mind the case here is that while there are different schools of Islam, we (or at least I) are arguing that the belief that  Jinn are supernatural beings and part of Islamic belief is held by significant/noteworthy scholars of Islam. (TheEagle107 would say the mainstream belief.) There are rationalist and modernists who don't agree, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone arguing they held sway during any period of Islamic history. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if the existence of Jinn was central to Islam ... In the dispute between literal and metaphorical, strict and broad interpretation, jinn is just one of a multitude of issues in Islam. Few would call it "central" to Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, there is another Muslim scholar mentioned in the same source who holds the same opinion and position as them, but his name is not included in the article! I think Fakhr al-Din al-Razi should be added in the article along with Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya.🤓

@Blueboar:

If you have some free time and are interested in lending a hand, please take a quick look at the talk page. You will find there several sources that confirm what is written above in bold. Thank you.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @TheEagle107 I suppose the other side user VFF too is not contesting contents mentioned in relevant secondary academic literature. In above what you are bringing to attentions is good for you to discuss at upcoming RfC as WP:DUE weight. (May I request you to collapse the quote and translation part above).
 * Here question brought by User LPB was about technical and complex aspects of WP:OR. Over all consensus seem to be forming OR is not much concern in this case; but side note suggestions seem to be importance of weighing content on other counts like supporting with whether it has been talked about  by other scholars importance of Jinn to Islam in  the interim centuries? foremost is whether substantially supported by secondary academic sources for the relevant content last but not least WP:DUE.
 * I suppose every one will agree that inputs presented by users in this discussion are truly enlightening. I would request and fore see some of above inputs to get incorporated in FAQ and Wikipedia essays. (My emphasis). &#32;Bookku   (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Genocide sidebar‎ problems
Hi, this sidebar used to have a list of events considered genocides, unfortunately this was a source of common disputes about how to follow NPOV (which events could be called genocide in wikivoice by listing in the template). Another editor organized the list into different levels of acceptance—which genocides are "universally", "majority" considered genocides—unfortunately these classifications are neither supported by RS nor particularly accurate. Can we get more input into avoiding OR in this template. Thanks (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete scientific opinions from 2006, sourced from archived website
This block of text was recently added to Cat predation on wildlife: "The advocacy group SongBird Survival, a limited company which achieved charitable status in 2001 and funds research into the causes of declining songbird populations, noted on its website in 2006 that 'cats are frequently singled out as the primary reason for the disappearance of Britain's songbirds' and described the claim as unjustified. It decried the absence of numbers for cat predation on birds from the 1997 survey by the Mammal Society, and drew a comparison between the figure of 55 million birds killed annually by UK's suggested 9–10 million cats, derived from an estimate by Cats Protection, and the 100 million birds preyed on by the 100,000-strong UK population of sparrowhawks each year. It suggested that the hunting instinct of cats 'could be dulled by their reduced need to catch their own food' and by human-sourced amusement, while noting that the total 2002 value of the cat product and service market approximated £1.5bn. However, a 2006 study report commissioned by SongBird Survival blamed grey squirrels and feral cats as responsible for 'a sharp decline' in bird populations in combination with sparrowhawks. It alleged that predators were as harmful as factory farming and that their populations were 'spiralling out of control'. In December 2015, Nick Forde, a trustee of SongBird Survival, denounced the RSPB's position on the grounds that adequate studies had not been done. He accused RSPB of protecting their financial interests and pointed to the difference in income between his charity and the rival RSPB. By 2016, the website of Songbird Survival also alleged that RSPB's position was 'no longer tenable'. In support of this claim, it now stated that 'the recovering sparrowhawk population in the 1970–80s resulted in the decline of some songbird populations' and that 'cats kill around 3 times as many songbirds as sparrowhawks', hence it is 'far more [sic] likely that cats have an even greater impact on songbird populations than sparrowhawks'." Songbird Survival's post-2006 view appears to represent the current scientifc consensus that predation by cats is a global conservation problem. (e.g., ) Is it original research to include these contradictory earlier views sourced to Internet Archive versions of their old website? There seems to be an implied conclusion that their views have changed a lot. Geogene (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's definitely OR of the source-manipulation sort. we had an article somewhere that encyclopedically treated the history of politicized dispute about differing approaches to control of cat predation on wildlife (which might or might not be a viable encyclopedia subject, depending on how much independent coverage the controversy may have generated about it as a controversy per se), then it is conceivable that a citation to this archived material could be pertinent, but only in the course of analyzing how positions have shifted over time. And even that could present OR issues, if independent secondary sources have not themselves published such an analysis. Here, by contrast, the material is being misused to try to contradict current scientific consensus  to miscast the authoring organization as holding an advocacy position that it does not in fact hold any longer, so it's wrongheaded twice over.  The same editor (VampaVampa), in material  related to and longer than the quote above, is also trying to contradict current research with primary-source papers from the 1970s, which is not okay per WP:OLDSOURCES, though that might ultimately be a matter for WP:RSN if we really needed to have multiple, forked noticeboard discussions about this editor's approach. There's a lengthy thread about all of this at Talk:Cat predation on wildlife, and it follows on another lengthy thread just above it, about a prior drive-by editor trying to similarly use advocacy op-ed material as if it were a scientific literature review. This article attracts this kind of WP:FRINGE stuff due to its emotionally politicized nature, ultimately a conflict between ecologists, zoologists, and other scientists, versus the more extreme bent in the animal-welfare advocacy camp (who somehow can stomach invasive cats killing billions of small animals per year, but cannot abide the idea of culling of feral cat populations, even if it means the difference between several more bird and other species surviving or going rapdily extinct due to cat predation).  VampaVampa's approach to all of this is outlandish claims that both WP and the scientific sources themselves are "biased", and even an evidence-free accusation that modern researchers are "ignoring" prior evidence/research that VV clearly considers to be WP:THETRUTH. This is leaning strongly in a conspiracy-theoretic direction. Their response to rebuttal has been to play victim and to text-wall their same position again and again in excessive, repetitive detail as if not already rebutted, and this is cannot go anywhere productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In response to the above claims, I would firstly welcome any external input, including mediation or arbitration, on the challenge mounted against my rather limited contribution by @Geogene and @SMcCandlish, two editors who happen to (1) support the same side in the academic debate about the impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife and biodiversity, and (2) both seek to deny that such a debate even exists in the field.
 * I wish to draw attention to the combative rhetoric with which the two editors have approached my contribution after I resisted @Geogene's attempt to revert it, and to their partisan comments about the NGOs involved in the dispute, as noted in the relevant talk page thread. It may be true that there has been a recent outpouring of research (notable for its quantity but not necessarily quality) that supports the claims they defend as the only scientific ones. But a number of important methodological objections have been raised to this new trend, as usefully summarised by Turner 2022, who is a senior scholar in the relevant field, and they deserve to be addressed on their merits, and not by the sheer volume of academic output.
 * Since the conflict between @Geogene and @SMcCandlish on the one side and myself on the other seems to boil down to whether there is currently any other tenable scientific position than the one they champion, this is clearly a WP:NPOV matter and I ask that it be treated as such. The WP:OR charge is bogus since nothing in my contested contribution is not covered by the sources cited and the sources are legitimate. VampaVampa (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah, the conclusions you are trying to draw and either explicitly state or steer the reader into believing, namely that there is extensive scientific debate about the extent and effects of cat predation (versus the well-attested political debating about what to do about it and how), that current researchers are in effect engaged in a conspiracy to ignore/hide prior research and are "biased", that WP editors are in cahoots with them, and that old research from the 1970s is superior to the current state-of-the-art in this field, is all supposition coming out of your own head and not found in the reliable source material. This is OR by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say "not found in the reliable source material", you imply that the sources which do not support your view are not reliable. As the talk page amply shows, you and @Geogene have arrogated to yourselves a right to arbitrarily judge what constitutes a reliable source. To disqualify a published source based on personal opinion is nothing but a personal point of view and if you were to include such unsourced judgments in the article, it would constitute original research.
 * I once more invite you to continue building the article with citations and discussion of what the sources say. Anything else will be obstruction on your part, and you will be reported to the admins.
 * As for your particular viewpoint - which is of little interest to me, but you insist on equating it with a "current scientific consensus" - a comparison against the citations in Palmer 2022 suggests that you favour the extreme version of the cats-as-pests argument (which can hardly be identical with the NPOV), as expressed in Marra and Santella's 2016 Cat Wars. For example, you resort to the accusation of "science denialism" (Palmer 2002, p. 213), and you denounce RSPB as a "dead" organisation (cf. Palmer 2002, p. 211, for Marra and Santella singling out RSPB in their book); you have also voiced indirect support for cat culling above, which is the most notorious argument of Cat Wars. Few if any other sources go that far, and cat culling has likely never had a scientific consensus behind it - it is easy to show that the debate has long existed and there is no evidence other than your POV that it has conclusively ended. Again, your personal views are of little relevance to the article, so long as you can help build and source it properly.
 * Incidentally, since you have started this conflict by trying to revert an edit specifically relating to the UK context, Palmer 2022 happens to be dealing with the political (NGO) background to the controversy about cat predation in the UK context, and describes RSPB as one of "cat-neutral conservation groups" (p. 217). You may well disagree on this and many other issues, but the way to do that is to cite a source in the article and relate what it actually says, and desist from further edit warring. VampaVampa (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Great Replacement: i would like editors to review what i have written here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#please_review_this_before_i_add_it_in._if_something_needs_to_be_added_or_removed_please_tell_me

there are concerns that the below is potentially not relevant. i believe it is but i would like a review from anyone who wishes to read it:

Labour politician and former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country." Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin [makes it] hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.'

Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium. Labour politician Ed Miliband said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. Tory chairman Grant Shapps said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.” NotQualified (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) NotQualified (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * a specific point of contention is the lack of the article title appearing in any of the sources. i have disputed that is not a valid reason to dismiss a source but they have argued that even that being true, it still means i have to go further to prove the relevance of what i wrote (to my understanding of their criticism). here is my short response:
 * "this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant. that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and even "potentially" confessed to. what i wrote was fair and balanced and tried to take both sides into account as i know this has been contentious." NotQualified (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an I don't hear that violation.
 * The article to which NotQualified proposed to append this text is Great Replacement, the topic of which is a conspiracy theory about migration.
 * To the very best of my knowledge, no reliable source about the conspiracy includes in it these anecdotes (from generally questionable sources) about Labour's immigration policy. In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory.
 * Frankly, this looks like the editing history of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk page all over again, where every few months it seems some editor will come up with sources apparently unrelated to the conspiracy but seek their inclusion to support the FRINGE view that somehow the conspiracy is based on something real. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * > This appears to be an I don't hear that violation.
 * i was told to come here and post about it.
 * > To the very best of my knowledge, no reliable source about the conspiracy includes in it these anecdotes (from generally questionable sources)
 * i would agree the dailymail is questionable, but i would strongly disagree the telegraph is. the telegraph has sourced the dailymail in its own piece without disputing what was said, which was why i decided against my previous feelings that the source was valid enough to be put in. regardless, i use the word "alleges" in it, to show it is not a proven fact. the thing is, discourse around the topic article is relevant even if that discourse is right or wrong.
 * > In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory. NotQualified (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NotQualified: do you believe the source article you are proposing from The Telegraph is about the conspiracy theory? If so, why? Newimpartial (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it directly cites the daily mail source, which is 100 percent about the conspiracy theory. sorry i'll go into this more in depth later im a bit busy NotQualified (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail was caught lying about the lies that it lied about, it's not a usable source see WP:DAILYMAIL which links to multiple discussions about it. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry it cut me off.
 * > In my view, this article should include only content clearly related to its topic, rather than creative assemblages of factoids offered in apparent support of a conspiracy theory.
 * define 'clearly'. i agree that contentious articles need to be especially properly sourced but i feel like we're at odds with how we determine if something is "clearly" related. ive already discussed on WP:SYNTH that an article does not need to be named in verbatim, especially given the relevance of the term relative to its publication.
 * > Frankly, this looks like the editing history of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk page all over again, where every few months it seems some editor will come up with sources apparently unrelated to the conspiracy but seek their inclusion to support the FRINGE view that somehow the conspiracy is based on something real.
 * define 'apparently', again im just not seeing this Newimpartial. if you need me to write what i wrote in an even more condemning or questioning way, i can. i can say the claims arent proven, or something along the lines that "The allegations of which are just allegations and can not substantively prove anything, but the discourse on a large publication is relevant" if thats how far you need me to take it, granted id find even mentioning that to be coming off as biased against but if you need me to go even further i can. i am trying to act in good faith but you have to understand how frustrating this is. NotQualified (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NotQualified: Why do you believe the (unusable) Daily Mail source is itself about the conspiracy theory? Remember, the topic of the article is a conspiracy theory about population replacement, not Labour's immigration policy or even replacement migration. Content for the article, regardless of the terminology it uses, must relate to the topic of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these sources say that there was ever any intent to replace the current populace, none of of them even suggest it in any way. So it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. You have been told this multiple times by different editors on the articles talk page. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is rather obvious violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. Why are we even discussing this, it is obviously WP:SNOWBALL category. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar discussion at WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller  talk 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples in India
Editors following this board may be interested in editing the above article, which currently purports to straightforwardly present a list of groups indigenous to India with inadequate sources; academic literature on this topic primarily problematizes the category and the difficulties of identifying who belongs to it due to the history of successive empires subjugating India or parts thereof, followed by partition and independence, but none of this aspect of the topic is currently covered in the article. signed,Rosguill talk 15:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Gillian Keegan
On this article, IP addresses keep adding the same edit regarding donations to the politician Gillian Keegan. I suspect it is the same user as the edit is always identical: "According to the 2023 Register of Interests, Keegan has accepted donations of £5000 from the following named individuals:

Tim Ashley, Charles Lewington of Hanover Communications, former Morgan Stanley bank President Franck Petitgas and David Russell as well as £17,710.60 from the Catholic Bishops Conference England & Wales and two tickets with hospitality to Qatar Goodwood Festival, total value £2,268. "

The edit was reverted several times by myself and other editors in February and March who viewed the content as original research/in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY as it relies only on a primary source with no secondary sources to establish notability. The same exact edit has been added over the last few days but an IP keeps adding it back. Not sure what to do here as I would not like to start edit warring. Thanks in advance Michaeldble (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ I agree it isn't appropriate. This would seem to meet the criteria at Rough guide to semi-protection given this is a BLP and it is a repeated BLP policy violations by anonymous IPs. I suggest going to Requests for page protection and putting in a request for semi protection on the Gillian Keegan page. That should prevent further anonymous IPs from adding the content back. In your nomination you can refer them to this discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the September 11 attacks
Aren’t some of the earlier entries OR? Or am I missing something? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at it, it's pretty lengthy and I'm sure a few of them could be removed for not being terrible relevant but which ones in particular do you feel constitute OR? Lostsandwich (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lostsandwich The first and second for a start. Sure, they might be, but still seems OR. Doug Weller  talk 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not taken a deep dive… but most of the entries in the timeline seem to be cited… so are they going beyond what the sources say? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do they need to discuss 9/11? Doug Weller  talk 21:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Depends on the section. I don’t think the background does. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree it's probably pushing it as far as relevance really goes (at least with respect to wiki policy on WP:NOTEVERYTHING) but I've been trying to think of where a hard line would be drawn in this instance and can't really come up with one. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the sources say, do the sources explicitly connect those events to 9/11? If not, then it's an WP:OR conclusion. From skimming the article without having dug into the sources, reference #2 looks like it's about 9/11 based on its title, so entries cited to it should be valid. Some of the others would need further inspection. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Synth at Al-Sardi school attack
A user is citing this AP article on the Gazan Ministry of Health to append "Hamas-run" to the places Ministry of Health is cited in Al-Sardi school attack. The source has nothing to do with the topic of the attack on the school. The sources cited about the actual attack do not say anything about "Hamas-run" The user, @WeatherWriter, says this is not a synthesis violation, whereas I think that it is a straightforward A+B=C (MoH is under Hamas government (A), MoH reported number of dead (B), Hamas-run MoH reported number of dead (C)). Is this improper synthesis?  nableezy  - 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems a little pointless; regardless of whether including this information cited to this particular source is WP:SYNTH, we've already found sources that can be used for this information without SYNTH issues. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Clerical note: discussion opener was offered by myself to open a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but choose this route instead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not improper synthesis in my opinion as the Associated Press {reliable source per WP:RSP} wrote a full article on, in short "Who is the Gazan Ministry of Health?" and "How do they track deaths?". In the source, I cited the exact quote from them saying "the Gaza-based Ministry of Health — an agency in the Hamas-controlled government". The exact dispute is over this (specifically the bolded/italic part of the following):
 * "The exact death toll, as well as the breakdown between civilians and combatants, is disputed. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reported that at least 33 Palestinians were killed, including 3 women, 9 children and 21 men.
 * Everything is cited properly, so I do not see or understand how this would be "original research", as the discussion started claims. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Important note: The discussion opener has directly stated citing this BBC News article ("Gaza’s Hamas-run Government Media Office") for "Hamas-run" would not be original research, but citing the Associated Press saying the exact same thing is original research. Clarification is definitely needed from an administrator, as we have claims of the AP and original research on the same statement made by the BBC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTH and let people who have read it comment here.  nableezy  - 16:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion from two sources when it is not present in either of them is synth. Apart from which this whole Hamas run business is a complete irrelevancy when WP has already decided that GMH is a reliable source (not all verifiable information needs to be included). Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Additional note, per Nableezy's request, the AP News article has been re-added to the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a today AP article which cites GHM without "Hamas run" appended to it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Hamas-linked Health Ministry" -per that AP article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And what value is added by appending "Hamas-linked" to GHM, when GHM is already considered reliable? None. If, when you see that (or the run version) in a source, your first reaction is "I must add that", question your own motivation for doing so. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is no different than if the "Department of Defense" was cited. Whose DoD? Whose Health Ministry? Since it is a branch of the government, the associated government should be mentioned. IDF is a case where the government (Israel) is mentioned in the name. "Gaza" isn't a government. Gaza can be a lot of things. Mentioning the associated government gives value to it. It is a reliable source, but the government should still be listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to differ, since if you believe that Gaza Health Ministry (look, a wikilink, even), is not entirely self explanatory, I can't help that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if what I'm describing falls under SYNTH, but it's usually an indication there's something wrong when there's a source unrelated to the article's topic. This article should be written exclusively using sources that are about the Al-Sardi school attack or sources that give it significant coverage. If a fact does not appear in any such sources, then it is undue. Start with relevant sources and find facts in them. Do not start with facts and then try to find sources for them. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Need a reality check
Could someone give me a reality check on List of Masonic abbreviations. It strikes me as one huge OR violation. The two sources cited do demonstrate that Masons abbreviate words when writing about their fraternity, but neither source actually discusses “Masonic abbreviation” as a concept. OR or not? Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just had a look. That's gonna probably need an entire rewrite or some heavy, heavy removals. I'd probably be okay with removing the entire "List" section. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Crime action films has been nominated for discussion
Category:Crime action films has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

It is claimed by some participants that the genre label is not in common usage and lacks a consistent definition beyond "crime film + action film", whereas others digress and argue the opposite. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Method of Mechanical Theorems
Could someone please take a look at The Method of Mechanical Theorems? It's an article about a treatise by Archimedes on various mathematical/geometrical theorems. My concern is that the segments outlining the various propositions read like a professor's lecture notes, extensively use modern mathematical notation, and are entirely unsourced. For example, the intro to the first proposition, the "Area of a parabola" reads:


 * To explain Archimedes' method today, it is convenient to make use of a little bit of Cartesian geometry, although this of course was unavailable at the time. His idea is to use the law of the lever to determine the areas of figures from the known center of mass of other figures. The simplest example in modern language is the area of the parabola. Archimedes uses a more elegant method, but in Cartesian language, his method is calculating the integral


 * $$ \int_0^1 x^2 \, dx = \frac{1}{3},$$


 * which can easily be checked nowadays using elementary integral calculus.

On several occasions, the article uses Instructional language:
 * "of course"
 * "we see that"
 * "We will think"
 * "we wish to show that"
 * "Q.E.D." (the statement by a person who has successfully proved a geometrical proposition, ie - a statement directly to the instructor, students, or readers)

There are no citations in any of the sections discussing the five propositions of the Method.

I put "Original research" tags on the article two years ago, but was not aware of this notice board; if I had known, I would have listed it then. The OR tags were deleted by an IP editor a year ago and I didn't notice. I recently came across the article again.

I don't think there is anyone I should notify of this post, since as far as I can tell, these parts of the article were added around 2010 by an editor who is now blocked indefinitely.

I don't have the mathematical skills to determine if there are reliable sources in support of the five proofs given in the article.

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In any case, all of the alleged WP:OR content fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP who removed the OR tags claimed that the manuscript itself was used to derive these contents, which violates WP:NOPRIMARY. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I nuked the overview section as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and added a summary to the lead, which the one source I can access explains in terms of integral calculus. (It is a book that is cited in the article and available open-access on the Internet Archive.) The rest of the source is an English translation of the Method, as reported by the original discoverers; I suggest rewriting the rest of the article as a summary of each theorem in this translation, on similar principles as MOS:PLOT for works of fiction and without original research. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The explanations seem like pretty lucid expositions of the Archimedes text, and are broadly consistent with Heath's (secondary) commentary on the manuscript. For technical articles, we routinely include lay descriptions of things (including proofs).  I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis.  Tito Omburo (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the citation needs to be used inline. Also, your concerns do not address that the article should be written like an encyclopedia, not a textbook. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, MOS:EDITORIAL. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a style issue, irrelevant for this Noticeboard. And WP:MSM: "Mathematics articles are often written in a conversational style similar to a whiteboard lecture." Tito Omburo (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to this comment:
 * "I can confirm that the explanations do not contain systematic original research, in the sense of arriving at novel conclusions or synthesis"
 * Respectfully, that assurance is irrelevant. Individual Wikipedians are not reliable sources, as that term is used here: WP:RELIABLE. The concern I am raising is that much of the article is unsourced, leading me to believe it contains original proofs devised by a previous editor. A personal assurance by an editor, whether that is you or me, does not make up for a lack of cites to reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked others for their opinions, so it's weird that you would say their opinions are irrelevant. The article is sourced to Heath's translation and commentary of Archimedes The Method. I am saying that the proofs here are not original. They are in the original source.  Tito Omburo (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then please provide the specific page numbers to support the proof. I asked here for discussion whether the proof is original research, as that term is used on Wikipedia. That doesn’t mean I’m asking for their personal opinions on the proof. I’m asking others if they agree that the proof is adequately supported by reliable sources, or if there is a lack of reliable sources. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're asking for opinions on whether the proof is supported by sources. I've given you my opinion. Not sure why that's such a problem. Big picture: the article is actually rather good. The explanations of the proofs are clearer in my opinion than in Heath"s commentary, the original palimpsest, or even Netz and Noel's pop book on The Archimedean Codex. So I see this gunning for the article as rather destructive. Could the article use more sources, better citation style, some copyediting? Sure.  But it's not a GAR where everything needs to be perfect. So just lay off. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Put simply, is the article summarizing Archimedes’s propositions, as he set them out in the letter? Or is the article providing modern proofs of his propositions?  If it is the latter, then reliable sources for the modern proof are needed. It can’t just be a free-standing proof given by a previous editor. There has to be a reliable source cited in support of that proof. Otherwise it is just original research. Wikipedia summarises. It doesn’t provide original research by some unknown editor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is summarizing Archimedes' proofs. In fact, this is clear enough from the article itself. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)