• "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
• For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.

Archives

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

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

User:Ramblersen2 has created many articles on notable buildings in Denmark, containing very detailed information about all known previous inhabitants (of the current and former buildings on the same location), compiled from census records. Frederiksberggade 1 is the most recent example. Example paragraph:

At the 1801 census, No. 140 was home to 45 residents in eight households. Jacob Rosted resided in the building with his wife Frideriche Dau. a maid and two lodgers (carpenters). Anne Christine Linne., a widow, resided in the building with two sons (aged 12 and 15), a maid and two students. Gertrud Marie Greis, a widow teacher, resided in the building with a maid, Peder Armstrøm (a planter from Saint Croix and the latter's 11-year-old black servant. Johan Gotlieb Blau, a pharmacist, resided in the building with his wife Christine Winkler, their two children (aged three and five), two maids, three pharmacists, two pharmacist's apprentices and a caretaker. Philip Gebhart von Thun (1756–1828), a captain in the Royal Danish Navy, resided in the building with his wife Anette Mathisen, a two-year-old daughter and two maids. Rasmus Larsen, a beer seller (øltapper), resided in the building with his wife Marie Hansen and their eight-year-old daughter. Ole Hansen, a barkeeper, resided in the building with his wife Juliane Hobroem their trhree children (aged 13 to 18) and a maid. Niels Andersen, a beer seller, resided in the building with his wife Anne Cathrine Jensen and their two children (aged two and three).

We have a disagreement whether such information is acceptable or should be removed. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, is there a discussion anywhere other than in edit summaries? I think it's unencyclopedic trivia that should be excluded, but I'd like to hear Ramblersen2's argument for inclusion first. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ramblersen2#WP:OR. I had also informed them of this discussion, as their input is of course necessary. Fram (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have for quite some time worked on creating articles on all heritage listed buildings in Denmark. In some cases, typically in inner Copenhagen, it is difficult to find sources with more than very basic information. As a supplement to other available sources, I have then relied on information from the earliest available census records (typically 1787, 1801, 1840 and sometimes a few more) in piecing together the early history of the property/building. I think the information from the census records is instrumental in highlighting what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated from the premises etc. In many cases, the same people have contributed to the evolution of the property by adapting then, constructing warehouses etc. If we have an article on a marginally notable (typically heritage listed) building, I think we may just as well make it an informative one, rather than leaving it as a fairly uninformative start-class article. The information from the census records is always supplemented by all the other sources I can dig up, old illustrations etc. I don't think it is correct to refer to published information from census records as "primary sources" or "original research". But I have been in doubt as to how I should present the information to avoid it turning into something that might qualify as original research. And I have then ended up going with the form that seemed to get the best ratings by a range of different reviewers over a quite long period of time. And I have wanted to stick to a somewhat consistent approach. In some cases, I can see that it seems more relevant than in other. In some cases, it would no doubt be better to provide a summary of the composition of residents.Ramblersen2 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an argument for a brief paragraph summarizing "what sort of people lived in the building, what sort of businesses were operated...". But a prose-list that is merely a directory of residents from over 200 years ago? How is that relevant or helpful? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed. That amount of excessive intricate detail is not related to how or why the building is notable in the first place. This type of detail - Peter Christian Kierkegaard resided in the first-floor apartment to the left with the theology student Otto Harald Benedictus Boisen - is not relevant or notable information about the building.

In order for any named resident to be included in the article, they must be notable themselves. For example, see: Notable residents of the Dakota or Notable residents of the Brentmore or Notable residents of The San Remo. Also see WP:NBUILDING for the guidelines on notability for buildings. And danishfamilysearch.dk is a questionable source as well, since it appears to allow user generated content. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment the same, but it's already been done. danishfamilysearch.dk appears to be user generated content (you can create an account here[1]), so shouldn't be used for any verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any problem with using danishfamilysearch.dk. Creating an account gives you access to more daily page views and you can transcribe untranscribed census records but the page publishes the original census record which is not user generated content.Ramblersen2 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, danishfamilysearch.dk is an unreliable source and when are you going to remove all those excessive details from the article? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And even if the transcriptions or images of census records is unimpeachable, they're WP:PRIMARY and not normally used as sources. EEng 06:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a giant world of these articles, all sourced primarily to danishfamilysearch.dk. Can somebody go through [2] and assess these articles? There seems to be oodles of WP:CRUFT in need of removal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again: Danishfamilysearch is not a user-generated source. The page publishes the original census records, you just need to press "original kilde" ("original source") to see the original census record. Another thing is that the information is also published by the Danish National Archives (see for instance here. Surely what matters for the information to be a valid source is weather it has been published and it has. The link makes it easy to check the source but is not what makes it a valid, published source (just like you can use a book as a source even if you don't provide an online link to the book. Information from census records are routinely used by recognised historians in articles on individual buildings in Copenhagen, see for instance Ida Haugsted [da]'s article Gips og voks på Østergade og Værnedamsvej' or Allan Tønnesen's Et hus i Amaliegade (I can provide you with lots and lots of other examples). Why wouldn't Wikipedia accept a source which is good enough for historians and scientific magazines?Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally avoids primary sources unless absolutely necessary. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even that's an overstatement. We don't use primary sources as some kind of last resort because nothing else's available, but rather we use them in very narrow circumstances (generally, to illustrate some point make in a secondary source). If those circumstances don't hold, we don't use the primary source, even if absolutely nothing else is available. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramblersen2, there are a lot reasons we don't use primary sources except in very narrow circumstances. For example, census records are often just plain wrong. An historian writing a bio of person X will not only look at the census record for where X lived, but will also use letters, business documents, and other sources to confirm what the census says; in their publication, they'll present their scholarly understanding of the best reconstruction of the historical facts, and our article can then draw on that. But we editors lack the resources to do such sifting and research, and indeed it's beyond our remit to do so even if we had such resources. So we don't use census records directly -- we wait for a secondary source to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then that material doesn't go in the article.

Beyond just the question of the accuracy of a census record, there's a question of, well, just plain what belongs in an article. If secondary sources on a particular building haven't seen fit to list its every occupant over the centuries, there's a reason for that: it's trivia.

A final point: Let's say that an historian says his research shows that Mr. Famous Person lived at 14 Wissenspoor in 1750. In addition to reporting that in the article, that would be a good time to go the the census and get the original handwritten census record, and include it as an image in the article. That's an OK use of the primary source, because we're using it for illustration, not as a fact source. There's a great example at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation -- a cemetery record. It's there for illustration, but NOT as a fact source. Indeed, the cemetery record gives the subject's middle initial as B, which is incorrect -- again, that's why we don't use primary sources for facts.

I hope the above helps. EEng 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EEng says it a lot nicer than I could. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had my grumpy pills yet this morning. EEng 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's guidelines: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[e] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents. 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.". I can easily understand the point that I have provided "excessively detailed information" but I have done so in an effort to make absolutely sure that I was only making "traightforward, descriptive statements of fact". And I do think that the information contains a lot of relevant information about the history of a given building: The type of residents, associated businesses (In Copenhagen, membership of a given craftsman's guild or merchant's guild, was typically attached to the ownership specific properties), notable residents or the hierarchy between different floors etc. In articles on notable buildings (typically because they are heritage listed) that are not major landmarks and where few other sources can be found, I really don't get the problem withy including such information. And having produced a lot of articles on buildings over a long period of time (several years), I can conclude that a wide range of new-page patrollers and page-raters have not seemed to have a problem with the approach either.Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we realize this is disappointing, and it's annoying that you've put so much effort into this aspect of hundreds of articles (see this search [3] of article space), but even repeating what the census entry nominally asserts is an interpretation -- you're taking it as fact. Look, again, at my example (linked above) of Phineas Gage's cemetery record -- it's got his very name incorrect. These kinds of records are often just wrong, and that's why we don't use them in the was you are using them. Furthermore, your very statement contains a lot of relevant information ... type of residents ... notable residents ... hierarchy between different floors etc shows you're trying to imply stuff that we as editors are not supposed to be implying. If a notable person lived there, then there will be secondary sources on that person mentioning that; we don't come to that conclusion ourselves. If there's something interesting about the hierarchy between floors, then when some social historian comments on that in a secondary source, we can include that; but we don't marshall data to imply that ourselves.

And to be perfectly blunt: your articles are great! The architecture, the history! But the long sections on Jan Marinsen and his wife and their three kids and their two maids and their cow and their chickens are nothing but cruft-trivia. They need to go. EEng 19:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I can see that lots of other perfectly relevant information based on other sources have to go as well. Yes that is indeeded super "disappointing".Ramblersen2 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC) How can the deletion of the entire History section of a page such as Nyhavn 17 not qualify as vandalism (compare here)? I get the point that mentioning random tenants at diffent census records is considered irrelevant but just deleting all information on the origins of the property, cadastral numbers (the building's only address until 1859), information on notable previous owners based on other sources, notable former residents based on other sources, map details, images...everything? Does such an approach really leav e it as a better article?Ramblersen2 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and I don't have time to look into it. It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. What I suggest you do is use that article as a vehicle for working out with other editors what is and is not appropriate for that kind of article in general. Open a discussion on the talk page. EEng

Things like cadastral numbers are trivia though. And considering Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Ramblersen2, getting rid of most text and only adding relevant, copyvio-free text back afterwards may well be the wisest approach. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now pretty much everything is just rejected as trivia. In spite of the fact that it is covered in secondary sources and is the sort of information that is covered in lots of published articles on individual buildings. Weather the information violates any copyrighted material should be pretty easy to determine, considering that the secondary sources are so limited.Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered in secondary sources we can probably use it; if it's merely "the sort of thing" that's covered in secondary sources, then we probably can't use it. EEng 09:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng: But the secondary sources are there. Take Nyhavn 67 as an example: User Allan Nonymous has simply deleting the entire history section of the article on the basis that it is "fandom". This book has been published about the history of the book. And the deleted section contained a number of other secondary sources, supplemented with some primary sources used in acorance with Wikipedia's guidelines (withy care and without interpretations). And yet all coverage of the history of a historic building is rejected as "fandom"? I can see from User:Allan Nonumous' talk page that an administrator (User:Liz) has criticized him for listing way too many articles for deletion. As I see it, he is still applying his own, eclectic criteria for what to delete. An article about an individual building is am article on a quite specific subject, it will obviously only interest a very limited number of people. But I do think that the average reader of an article about a historic building will expect to find information on the history of the building. Yes the relevance of some informations can no doubt be debated. Other information could no doubt be presented in another way. And an extra source should and could no doubt be added. But simply deleting the entire section on the basis that it is "famdom" is absurd. And it makes it impossible to fix the mentioned issues in a way that improves the article.Ramblersen2 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having only momentarily glanced at what was removed, it does seem that possibly some might be appropriately restored -- as I said already, It does happen that when an article is full of cruft, the cleanup throws some good stuff out with it. But I'm not sure what your statement that But the secondary sources are there refers to. It looks like most if not all of the removed material was sourced to this Danishfamilysearch site, and so can't be included.

Look, let me suggest this: of all these articles you're talking about, pick the one on the most famous building -- the one other editors are most likely to take at least some interest in. Then ask a few editors to join you in a discussion on that article's talk page about what does and doesn't appropriately belong in the article. (This is likely to be a lot less than you'd like, but that's the nature of the collaborative process.) Then try to apply that experience to another article, and ask one of the friendly editors from the first article to take a look.I wish I could offer to participate, but I just haven't got the time. Good luck. EEng 06:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:EEng: Thanks for the constructive reply and tone. It would have been a good suggestion if this discussion had come up a little (or rather a lot) earlier) but it is simply too many articles and too little that will be left (if only some new-page patrollers or page raters had raised these concerns a little earlier). So I have decided simply to quit Wikipedia. And if everything is deleted, so be it. Sorry to have wasted your time with this.Ramblersen2 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN § may I have a ruling on SYNTH?

 – Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often see instances of SYNTH being invoked in what I believe to be a fallacious manner to justify exclusion of content. Like UNDUE, I perceive that SYNTH is often invoked in CT articles in a way that suggests the actual objection is IDONTLIKEIT. that said, I might be wrong.

SYNTH says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources

so, if one reliable source says:

Former President Trump has for several days now spread lies and spouted conspiracy theories about the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene. The disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers.[4]

and another reliable source says:

Former President Donald Trump has delivered a barrage of lies and distortions about the federal response to Hurricane Helene ... Over a span of six days, in public comments and social media posts, Trump has used his powerful megaphone to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims.[5]

while a third reliable source says:

Republican and Democratic politicians and officials have in recent days resorted to pleading with people to stop spreading false information related to Hurricane Helene, with many saying that rumors and conspiracy theories are hampering recovery efforts ... The false claims have primarily taken hold among media, politicians and influencers who support former President Donald Trump and come at a particularly crucial juncture, with less than a month until the 2024 election. Trump used his high-profile return to Butler, Pennsylvania, where he was nearly killed by a gunman, to continue to spread false claims about FEMA.[6]

would it be SYNTH for an edit to say:

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts

in my view, citing multiple sources which together create a composite edit is not the same as SYNTH. soibangla (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue for AN. You should bring this to WP:NORN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an example of SYNTH.Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, soibangla, we need a source that explicitly links the misinformation that Trump has spread to the misinformation hampering recovery efforts. From only the text of the sources, there could be some specific things A that Trump is saying, and some specific thing B that's hampering recovery efforts, both of which are misinformation, but with different content. To link A and B without a source saying so would be original research. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a dispute regarding a particular article and edits (as you seem to be citing), then you should also link and include them. Context does matter.

But given the text read on its surface, and if the sources are in fact RS for the article, and that they are a representative sample of "press outlets", then your final sentence is fine to summarize. However, in my opinion, again without any context (because you haven't given it), it should take a more conservative approach to summarizing a combination of sources fairly -- one should think more towards intersection rather than union. Not all three sources used the same descriptors, but your summary listed all the descriptors with an "and" connector -- this seems like too much. If each source says two words, then maybe you should only say two words; if each source uses a different word, maybe connect with "or" instead of "and".

Edit: reading User:Alpha3031's addition above: this is why I need context, to find out what shades of meaning are at issue, and how much info is in the sources, given that I'm not gonna be reading them. If the NBC News source is the only one saying that the rumors are "hampering recovery efforts", but it does not tie any of that to Trump's public information apparatus and his own conspiracy mongering, and if the other sources do not make that connection either, then the sentence is simple synth. I.e. PBS reports Trump spreads conspiracy theories; NBC reports conspiracy theories hamper efforts; wikitext says Trump spreads conspiracy theories which hamper efforts = Synth. 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but PBS reports "The [Trump] disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers" and CNN reports "Trump has used his powerful megaphone to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims," while NBC reports "The false claims have primarily taken hold among media, politicians and influencers who support former President Donald Trump" and "rumors and conspiracy theories are hampering recovery efforts." I do not see the resultant edit as synth. soibangla (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the easiest way to eliminate OR concerns would be the two sentence version, without stating in wikivoice that disinfo A and disinfo B are the same. The first sentence can say that there are lies and distortions are 1) spread by Trump and 2) causing confusion, and the second can say disinformation is hindering efforts, without attributing the disinformation. The particular article and article talk discussion seems to be here, by the way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link for context: Talk:Hurricane Helene#there is no SYNTH in this edit.

I came to the same conclusion as Alpha3031 and SamuelRiv. There is synthesis here. We can say:

• Trump has spread disinformation about the federal response[1][2] and FEMA.[3]
• By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had spread disinformation about the federal response for several days.[1][2]
• Disinformation spread by Trump about the federal response is causing confusion for those affected by the hurricane.[1]
• Trump spread misinformation about the federal response through public comments and social media posts.[2]
• Public officials have asked those spreading false information about the hurricane to stop and that it has hindered recovery efforts.[3]

So then we could come up with text like "By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had spread disinformation about the federal response for several days,[1][2] in public comments and social media posts,[2] and that it was causing confusion for those affected by the hurricane.[1]" You could also use "Public officials have said that disinformation about the federal response hindered recovery efforts.[3]" But you can't put those next to each other in a way that implies they're the same exact disinformation, because implied synth works the same way as any other synth. I'd also discourage using "lies", because that doesn't fit with Wikipedia's impartial tone, which is going to be slightly different from a journalistic tone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is the difference between "implied synth" and "any other synth?" I'd also discourage using "lies" except that's what two reliable source actually say, and one says "disinformation" which is deliberate, rather than "misinformation" which can be inadvertent. I suppose there could be strong consternation by some that after years of reporting Trump speaks "falsehoods," reliable sources now report he's lying. this consternation gives rise to my concerns of some editors using any means, including allegations of synth, to exclude well-sourced content because they just don't like it. soibangla (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's explain wp:synth in the abstract as it applies here. RS #1 says "A is causing B". RS #2 says "B is causing C". We can summarize #1 and #2, but we cannot say "A is causing the B that is causing C".

Why not? It seems like basic logic, right? Well the real world doesn't work like that, because every real statement has particular scope with particular omission. "A is causing B" as said by a real source RS #1 about a real event does not necessarily mean it is causing all known B, such that when real source RS #2 talks about B, it must be encompassed within the set defined by RS #1. There are many ways to exploit this kind of logic-language disconnect to simply lie (using only true statements), which is part of why synth rules can seem pretty strict. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the edit does not say A causes B and B causes C. rather, it says A causes part of C and B causes another part of C.

A = lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories

B = lies, distortions

C = lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories soibangla (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A = Trump, B = disinformation etc, C = hampering recovery efforts. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is synth because it is saying something not stated in any of the sources, that public official say Donald Trump's spreading of misinformation has hindered recovery efforts. In fact, it is probable that the officials specifically chose not to lay the blame on Donald Trump.

Also, per WEIGHT, if we want articles to state a conclusion, then there should be a source that explicitly says that.

In fact, while you can say that Trump spread misinformation in articles about him, you cannot add that spreading misinformation has harmed recovery efforts, because that would be implicit synth. It would imply that Trump had hindered recovery efforts through spreading false information.

Wikipedia articles should not make accusations against Trump, or any other subject, but should report explicit accusations that have been reliably reported. TFD (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is pure synth because no source says that Trump ... created confusion and hindered recovery efforts. TarnishedPath 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one does, the second source. It's even in the quote above, but here's an even more explicit part of the transcript:

Geoff Bennett: As you note in the piece, the spread of rumors and misinformation has always been a problem during major disasters, especially when the usual channels of communication break down. But what's the real-world harm inflicted by lies and conspiracy theories about the hurricane relief effort?

Juliette Kayyem: Well, there's a couple of direct impacts. The first is how the government works and functions. It needs the support of communities and populations. If there's distrust, rumors, all sorts of rampant lies being spread, in particular by the former President Trump, it makes the work of government more difficult.

In the context of an interview about hurricane relief I feel that's pretty clear. Loki (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! That's a perfect example of why we like RS that do the SYNTH for us. We must not do it, but we can quote them connecting the dots because that is not forbidden. They provide the connection, then we write it. Then we also provide more sources that describe who is providing the disinformation, and we also provide more sources showing how authorities and aid workers describe the problems caused by all these lies. In the end, we may also add evidence that Russia is also spreading these lies, if that is the case, and since Trump often repeats Russian disinformation almost immediately after it appears, that information would also be good to add if it can be cited to RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about what the totality of all sources on the topic say, but if you are talking about only the three sources quoted in the original post of this thread, then yes, this is obviously synthesis under any sane reading of policy. This is almost exactly the same thing as the examples given at WP:SYNTH.

The extreme obviousness with which this violates the policy makes me suspect that the question is not being asked in good faith. jp×g🗯️ 11:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original content was added by them here to the Hurricane Helene article. PackMecEng (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is a good faith question, but you can go ahead and question my sanity if you like. soibangla (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to "question your sanity" [sic]. I simply note that you have been here for eleven years and made twenty-six thousand edits, many thousands of them in extremely contentious current-events articles, and thousands more in intense arguments about arcane nuances of policies. It seems, to me, quite unlikely that you are unaware of what WP:SYNTH says. jp×g🗯️ 07:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated in a good number of PAG discussions over the years in which even seasoned admins have disagreed in their interpretations. Some insist the interpretations are plainly obvious and unambiguous, while others disagree and suggest alternative interpretations. I do not claim to have comprehensive understanding of PAG as many of them never arise during the regular course of my contributions of content, and I spend minimal time hanging around the back rooms to watch the latest drama. I have observed a good number of disputes over the specific interpretation of synth, which can seem nettlesome to some, including me, as it does not seem among the most unambiguous of PAG. Now, people can think that makes me an idiot, but I fail to see how my request for a clarification might have some bad faith component to it. soibangla (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why people think it's WP:SYNTH, and also your reading of WP:SYNTH isn't right either, but I do think that it's actually not WP:SYNTH because the second source (the PBS one) does explicitly say that the misinformation spread by Trump is hampering the hurricane relief effort.

Even the quote you posted does (or at least I don't know how else to read The disinformation is causing confusion among those most desperate for help and answers), but if you click through to the interview it's even more explicit. Loki (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a more relevant quote from the article, then I would be glad to read it, but there is no world in which "those most desperate for help and answers" is equivalent to "the hurricane relief effort". That isn't just a logical jump, that is some Evel Knievel stuff. Are the aid workers the most desperate for help and answers? Don't they generally know the most about the state of the disaster? There was a wildfire near my house a couple months ago, and people were posting random dumb speculation about it on Facebook, and as far as I can tell the sum total of the effect on the firefighting process from this was zero. Why is it such a problem to just write something that accurately represents what the sources say? I get that there is an election coming up, and it's really important, et cetera, but I really think we should just try to follow the policies rather than break them on purpose. jp×g🗯️ 07:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clearly a reference to the hurricane relief effort in context.

Also, I think that before you roll in saying that ssomeone's position is so absurd they aren't acting in good faith, you should at least read the sources they're basing it on yourself, right?

Loki (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: you write "as far as I can tell the sum total of the effect on the firefighting process from this was zero." That may have been the case with that fire, but in this case, these lies are motivating people to threaten the lives of FEMA aid workers and officials. That's one reason this is so important. It is serious business, and your concerns that we get it right are very warranted. Now we just need to agree on how to do that. No one is trying to deliberately "break" policies, so AGF. Good faith editors can disagree, discuss, and come to a consensus, maybe a compromise, and we can all do it civilly and remain friends. Don't give up on your fellow editors too quickly. So keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this slight rephrasing has been suggested. is this synth?

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

soibangla (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢:

You are attributing some negative action to a living person - something which should cause you to exercise caution. Contentious material about living people, that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In my rulebook if you are unsure if the sources unequivocally support what you are trying to say, you should drop this altogether.

No information about living people should carry insinuations about these people unless the foundation is rock-solid. Only the first source supports the suggestion that Donald Trump's misinformation is hindering efforts, and even then the dialogue does not attribute it to "public officials", only to the former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. In the other two, the relation to Trump is at best tangential. The second source only says that he spread bullshit about the response to Hurricane Helene, while the third source only says that Trump spread bullshit about FEMA in general during his second rally in Butler, Pa. Neither the second nor the third source says about the impact his words may have had.

At most you can write that PBS anchor Geoff Bennett and Juliette Kayyem, a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security, assessed that through multi-day efforts at spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories about the federal government response, former President Donald Trump was sowing confusion and hampering recovery efforts. But then again if it's due is another good question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are citing this to the sources that you gave in the initial post of this thread, then yes, as has been said at great length, that is synthesis -- and not some kind of confusing tricky edge-case situation, but the most obvious and straightforward possible example. jp×g🗯️ 07:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that public officials said that disinformation from Trump created confusion and hindered recovery efforts. The problem is that public officials did not say that. Presumably they made a conscious effort not to say that, so the statement is a BLP violation against them. TFD (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the lead WP:SYNTH? Talk:Zionism#WP:SYNTH_in_lead Andre🚐 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone else please explain to Rulesfan why the following statements added to 2024 AFL Women's season (and several follow-up statements at the article's talk page) are original research, given that none of the sources they've provided at the talk page explicity state them:

• Brighton Homes Arena had scheduled Brisbane's men's team being to unveil their premiership cup at at the end of the AFLW match with AFLW ticketholders and club members receiving admission [...]
• Many of the 6,102 in attendance at the Brighton Homes Arena were there for the premiership cup reveal which directly followed the conclusion of the women's game.

I'm being accused of gatekeeping and having an agenda, but Rulesfan is still refusing to provide sources that explicity state what they're trying to add. I don't see how the content is needed anyway – this is all about a larger (but not record) home crowd that could come down to a variety of factors, including that the Brisbane v Adelaide rivalry is up there as the biggest in the AFLW, not just those mentioned at the talk page – so I don't think that it's notable/relevant enough to be included regardless, but I would still like to resolve this; thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for crowdsourcing your affirmation 4TheWynne. This may finally justify your consistent deleting of sourced information. As for the Brisbane Adelaide rivalry you may wish to review crowds for Brighton Homes Arena. https://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/springfield-central-stadium/crowds Last year's crowd for this "rivarlry" was 2,544 ... well below average for the venue. Perhaps actually reading the references provided, applying some common sense and a little Occam's razor is preferable to the Ostrich effect here. Just saying. --Rulesfan (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rulesfan: we don't use our "common sense" or "Occam's razor" to make claims on Wikipedia articles. We need reliable sources for any claims we make. If you're not happy about this, you're welcome to join some other project, start a blog or whatever where you can do such things. Unless a reliable secondary source has compared this years crowd to last year's crowd and said that this year's crowd was unusually large, we cannot make such a claim in our article; let alone that it was unusually large because of the unvealing of men's team. If reliable sources have mentioned that the unvealing happened after the game, you might be able to mention it subject to WP:UNDUE etc without connecting it to the crowd size. This would be largely be based on the level of coverage in reliable secondary sources and similar factors. If you only have few reliable secondary sources which mentioned it compared to the number which mentioned the match, this might very well be undue especially for the lead. Even if you aren't suggesting we include it in the article, your OR that the reason for the large crowd size is because of this connection is ultimately only of limited consideration when it comes to due weight consideration when RSes haven't made such a connection. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to point out and have provided sufficient reliable sources to support the claims you've mentioned above, including the notability of the crowd size, but despite this, 4TheWynne has deleted them multiple times. 4TheWynne is well aware of the numerous articles which highlight the problem of poor AFLW crowds this season. I think it needs a counterweight as the article gives readers the false impression that one off large crowds are due to the current popularity of the AFLW competition whereas they are most definitely not.

The facts from the cited sources:

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup at Brighton Homes Arena which was officially known as "Sunday Fan Day". "QLD: We'll see you after the AFLW game at Brighton Homes Arena. Sunday 5pm-7pm. QLDers will need to purchase a ticket to the AFLW to manage stadium capacity." They were clearly expecting a larger than usual AFLW crowd and much larger than last year's 2,544 if they were expecting the venue to be at capacity which is 8,000.

• The crowd was described as "huge" and directly attribed to the unveiling of the men's premiership cup described as "impossible to deny" - "But it was impossible to deny the infectious momentum of an AFL premiership as a boisterous maroon crowd packed Brighton Homes Arena. Those who stuck around welcomed Brisbane’s victorious AFL team home after they touched down during the second half." "The Lions have a three-point lead going into the final quarter with a huge crowd building up at Springfield ahead of the arrival of the men’s side following their premiership win in Melbourne on Saturday."

Rulesfan, you need to clean up your act and stop speaking for me.

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. OK, where are they? You've been asked multiple times to provide them.
• The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup. You still haven't provided a source that explicity states this.
• "[I]mpossible to deny the infectious momentum of an AFL premiership" ≠ The crowd was [...] directly attribed to the unveiling of the men's premiership cup.

Read WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources.

Rulesfan has continued to add this disputed content wthout consensus, this time wording it: "The match at Brighton Homes Arena was a designated as the Brisbane Lions Fan Day with AFL members requiring tickets to the AFLW match to attend the men's official 2024 AFL Premiership celebrations scheduled for the conclusion of the match". Yes, we can agree that the Lions' fan day took place that day, but that's the only thing explicity stated in any of the sources, with only one (the Age source) adequately connecting it to the match, but not the rest; for one, as above, they still haven't provided a source that any of this was to do with premiership celebrations/unveiling the cup, and my other point remains: even if they did, is the content really needed? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So in summary, even if someone takes out any "perceived" conclusion that hurts your butt you still remove it (without acknowledging the sources provided), because "YOU don't think its not needed" because you don't like the facts or want anyone else editing the article. That has nothing to do with original research, its just classic gatekeeping. What is your actual objection? At this point who cares about the crowd, yes it was a record home and away crowd for the venue (does this have citations besides Austadiums no because the stadium is only two years old and averages more than half empty), the point is that it wasn't solely an AFLW event, which I think is a pretty important one in keeping an event about the AFLW impartial. Otherwise its like saying that a band is popular because it was support act for a big name performer. FWIW multiple of these sources connect it to the match, you're just choosing to ignore them.

• Several communications were sent from the club and venue themselves that indicated this was not a standard AFLW match but a combined AFL AFLW event. The club sold tickets specifically to witness the unveiling of the men's 2024 AFL Premiership Cup. The cup is part of the celebrations, but yeah since its implied in the news... I'm happy with "celebrate the premiership" thats kind of the point of the fan days really. Here you go straight from the source:

Need some help please. there is a person on the Turkmun Hazaras tribe page keeps reverting my edits and deleting my sources essentially saying that his sources contradicts me. He says "A number of writers have dealt and considered this Hazara tribe to be of the Turkoman race or descent" and he then further says "which if you force me, I will present them to you,". I asked for these writers/sources and he refuses to show them to me or even cite them in his edit. Theres alot more to be said... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mioncraft (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two statements I included at Can't Catch Me Now have been flagged as potential WP:NOR issues by Pbritti at its FAC. These include "Dan Nigro returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album, Guts (2023)" (cited to Billboard, USA Today, Variety; Nigro produced and co-wrote every single track on the album) and "The album was released to critical acclaim in September 2023" (currently cited to BBC News; can potentially be cited to Metacritic, where it is designated with "universal acclaim"). From my understanding, Pbritti interprets the sentence "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" to mean that a source used to include details in the Background section must have been published after the song "Can't Catch Me Now" was released and include a mention of it too. Would appreciate uninvolved opinions on this. Thank you.--NØ 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned above is that there appears to be little basis for the inclusion of multiple sentences cited solely to sources well pre-dating the release of the song the article is about. If reliable sources do not find a need to draw certain connections, then those connections are necessarily original to the editor who adds them to Wikipedia. Particularly objectionable is the mention of "critical acclaim" about a previous album, sourced not to anything about the article's subject. The FAC in question is a strong candidate, but I do not see why a this kind of article can dispense with policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pbritti, I have changed the referencing for Guts being critically acclaimed to this source and this source, which state "The new track from Rodrigo comes just two months after the release of her critically acclaimed second studio album, 'Guts'", and added this source which begins by talking about Can't Catch Me Now for the statement that Nigro was the main collaborator on Guts, which also states "Rodrigo and her co-writer and producer Dan Nigro assembled 'Guts' as the follow-up to Rodrigo's Grammy-winning 2021 debut, 'Sour'". Happy with this as a compromise. Let me know if this resolves your issues.--NØ 17:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: On the move at the moment but, AGFing that these sources are as described, this would be more than acceptable solution to my concerns. I'm deeply appreciative that you took that step and look forward to seeing your hard work receive a much-deserve promotion at FAC. Thank you for your diligence, cooperativeness, and communication and apologies for any ire my concerns caused, especially since they appear poorly communicated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Until such time that you have gone through the sources and revised the comments at the FAC accordingly, it is best we keep seeking third party opinions. We still need clarity on the general policy interpretation since your interpretation of it is inconsistent with what I have seen enforced at FAC. I can't say I agree with the original criticisms just because it was possible to find replacements here.--NØ 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on an article about a SCOTUS decision. And to emphasize its notability, I checked GoogleScholar and found, that it was cited 2377 times as of today. Is the "2377" original research or not? There is no other way to provide a reference for such infor, if you want recent data. Here is the article draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar doesn't always have an accurate number for citation count, at least for academic citations (I doubt for law too). [Edit: thus it would not be intrinsically verifiable and thus it's OR.] But more to the point, let's say you put the citation count in the article text. Is 2377 a lot? A lot for a scotus decision? A lot for a modern scotus decision? Any way you cut it, to give any reader some comprehension (who is not a legal scholar themselves), you'd need a secondary source to contextualize such a number.

It reminds me of a joke I think from a Kip Thorne book. Carl Sagan was famous for saying "billions and billions" when communicating so-called "astronomical numbers" (but it of course never mattered what precisely the number actually was). But since then, citing the trillions of the US GDP, trade deficit, and debt in the news, Thorne(?) suggests instead calling them "economic numbers". The point is no matter what the number or the name, it's meaningless in communication. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that a case has been cited numerous times, it is an implicit statement about its significance, which is OR. You should use a source that explains its significance.

Also, it isn't meaningful information that a case has been frequently cited unless you mention what aspect of the case was cited. Often what lawyers find interesting about a case may be something minor, sometimes even dicta. TFD (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I forgot to mention (and this is clearly stated in my draft here):

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Georgia-Pacific_Corp._v._United_States_Plywood_Corp. "According to Google Scholar on 2024-10-14, [3] [original research?] this decisions has been cited 2377 times, making it THE MOST CITED DECISION OF THE USFEDERAL COURTS IN 1971.[4]" [4] Slottje, Daniel (25 October 2006). Economic Damages in Intellectual Property: A Hands-On Guide to Litigation. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-05625-7. I am citing a book from 2006 that explicitly states, that it was the most cited decision of US Federal courts in 1971. AND then, I add updated citation count from Google Scholar today. (I can check how this number compares with all other cases from 2006 -but then I will get really worried about OR. It seems to me, that citing a 2006 book, which explicitly states, that is was highest cited decision of 1971 proves the notability of this case. (The question of notability for a wiki-article is the reason I decided to research the number of citations). If this is not the right way to prove notability, than what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing that demonstrates notability of anything. Have multiple reliable and independent sources written about the subject in reasonable depth? Seraphimblade 12:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "it has a citation count of 2377 on Google Scholar as of October 2024" instead of that it has been cited 2377 times, then that'd be accurate and imo not OR. You need to lead with Slottje, not Google -- Slottje is your sole source for the case being well-cited, while the Google count is just a bit of flavor sprinkles (and should probably be in a footnote and definitely not in the lede prose).

To add to and amend my previous reply, GS has stability in indexing its citation counts I think (it's search results that are unstable). At issue is that GS indexes across all subjects, so it includes counts of, say, non-legal history or sociology papers that may cite the case. LawCite also provides a citation index for 318 FSupp 1116, but it's not a complete count (I believe the stars go up to three). The place I can think to get a complete law-only citation count would be Lexis Nexis or Westlaw, the former which you can access at some libraries. Regardless, it's not necessary or usually even useful information for article prose, per my previous reply. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note when including the Slottje details, it should include the date if that publication, eg "As if 2006, this case was the mist-cited in other US legal cases" Masem (t) 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Slottje is saying it's the most cited case of 1971, then it would take a significant change in existing law or historical scholarship for that fact to change going forward, and anyone can check the date of publication by the source. The "as of" is only necessary for a rapidly-changing fact, such the raw number of citations this month. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually necessary in all cases. Article text should be as accurate a thousand years from now as today, so if something could conceivably change, it needs an "as of", whether such a change is likely or not. That also provides a temporal context. Seraphimblade 00:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Under no circumstances should Google hits or citation counts be used in articles, period. Same goes for WestLaw or whatever. There are too many uncertainties and provisos to what the results mean. This is a superb example of why secondary sources are used instead -- a scholarly paper on the influence of this case will know how to use tools in an expert manner to give meaningful numerical results, if such results are appropriate. EEng 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this. Is Foo v. Bar showing a citation count of 2000 significant? I'd have no idea. Is that more impressive for a newer case than an older one? Probably, but how much so and over what time frame? A legal scholar will be able to actually interpret and contextualize that number, and say "Yeah, that's really a lot" or "That's not all that impressive" or "That number is rather artificially inflated." Seraphimblade 10:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. May we get back now to my original question: what is the most appropriate way to show a notability of court case? I proposed to show

1) how the case is ranked in terms of the number of citations it received among all other cases that year at the appropriate level (Federal or State). 2) someone objected to it, because the ranking may depend on the database used (which should NOT be true, because this a finite and well-know number of court cases in the US for each year - unlike the number of citations a journal article receives). 3) the fact, that the case is cited in a textbook does not mean much. This is because unlike the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Men change often. Even, if an old book mentions Baker v. Nelson as highly cited, it is not a good law today. 4) I feel, that Wikipedia must have an explicit policy on case law notability. If such policy does not exist today, should we make it?

The most appropriate way to show the notability of court cases is the same as the appropriate way to show the notability of anything, and already exists. Have reliable and independent sources extensively noted it, by writing a good deal about it? Seraphimblade 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Slottje says it's the most cited law of 1971, then that's the appropriate way to show notability in the lede, as you have done. As I said before, the inclusion of a Google Scholar count in that sentence is unnecessary (and definitely problematic especially to be in the lede).

All that said, I don't see in Slottje where it says that Georgia-Pacific is the most-cited case of 1971, so you have to provide a page number. It does say on p.4 that it is among "several of the most significant cases [in IP law on economic damages]", and a significant part of the book is about applying "Georgia-Pacific analysis" in legal practice.

Imo if a single other source confirms that "Georgia-Pacific analysis" is an existing term of art in law, then the article clears notability by a mile. Citation counts mean nothing by comparison. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if the point is 'it's influential' number of cites does not even do it for most readers, it sounds rather like trivia -- go to where you always have to go for 'it's influential' or even 'number of cites matters', a scholar who writes those things, don't try to put that together yourself with data (that is original research). (besides which, the OP has an error as to time in the way they have tried to jam those two things together) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On the articles on the 1600 meter and 3200 meter track events, I added an equivalent world bests section which converted the world record indoor and outdoor mile or two mile times to a 1600m or 3200m equivalent time (also adding these to the list of world records in athletics section). Does this count as Original Research? I used the MileSplit Conversion Calculator that gave equivalent times, which is cited for its ease of use and accuracy.

To clarify, these are equivalent times, not necessarily the actual split the athlete came through at for 1600m or 3200m en route to 1 mile or 2 miles (though given the distances are nearly the same the times wouldn't be too different). Bringing up this point, if I were to go back into the video of a mile or two mile world record race and estimate what the athlete split at 1600m or 3200m based on the clock, would that count as OR? Better yet, what if I went into the official splits section of a world record run to pull the 1600m or 3200m split? Is that original research?

I feel like this is a gray area as times are technically calculations. Please advise. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would the equivalent be calculated? Did you just adjust the distance (1 mile = 1609 meters)? That does not work!

A track time is always significantly faster. A rubberized track has energy-restorative properties (think like a spring) and water drainage, optimized for track running shoes, while road or turf have none of that.

(This is also why track times from the 1930s, on crushed cinders, were so much slower btw -- one can do a comparative adjustment by taking modern runner's times on tracks versus other surfaces and finding a functional distribution, and they did that with like the 1930s Olympic runners, demonstrating that say Jesse Owens would likely still be an Olympic-level runner today -- that's the difference of modern tracks. If you find such an adjustment function online, you may or may not get away with applying it (editors will probably consider that WP:Synth), but at least you can link it). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SamuelRiv. I appreciate the input, but you misunderstood my post. What I mean by equivalent is that, upon plugging in the mile or two mile world record time, the milesplit calculator took the average speed of the mile or two mile world record and then converted what the equivalent time at that pace would be for the shorter distance, with 1600m being 9.344m short of 1 mile, and 3200m being 18.688m short of 2 miles. Therefore, it is an equivalent world best and the equivalent time would be similar to the actual time given 1600m and 3200m are not far from 1 mile or 2 miles respectively. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I say equivalent I do not mean, for instance, what Hicham El Guerrouj's mile world record would be today on modern tracks in modern spikes. In this example, I am referring to what Hicham El Guerrouj's equivalent time would be when he comes through the 1600m mark at his mile world record tempo (3:41.84 thru 1600m, 3:43.13 for mile). The equivalent and actual time will be within several tenths of a second of each other given the 9.344m difference. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can give a distance adjustment maybe in a table, for purposes of sorting, but where it's in prose in that separate section it's just misleading. (While I'd say a 1-mile-to-1600m adjustment is perfectly defensible on a table with both on a standard track, the calculator becomes patently ridiculous when it has distance-adjusted times for the indoor short tracks.) The correct way to do it in prose, if you have the source, is as it is said for Webb: Webb was timed in 3:51.83 for 1600m (en route to the high school mile record in 3:53.43). 1500m-to-1600m btw also cannot be adjusted in this way, and would require a statistical table for conversion. (Again, if you can find such a good proper calculator, then you can try linking it.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have high school records, I'm not sure why you wouldn't include indoor and cross-country records. They're slower, but that's because they're different races. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been getting into Tic-tac-toe variants and testing them out with friends. Most of them are interesting, and we've refined them to be more complex, fair, and fun! An example of a small modification is Tilt-Tac-Toe, which is played like a game of Ultimate tic-tac-toe, except the center game is rotated 45 degrees. This means that, for example, playing in the top corner of the center game will send the other player to the top edge game. Center corners are more powerful as a result! This can also be combined with ulimate^2 TTT, also known as ultimate TTT level 3, for even more craziness! Another more complicated variant is Trifect Tac Toe, played with 3 people on a 5x5 board. The concept is that each symbol counts as the next in a cycle, allowing one player to incorporate another's into their 5 in a row. (for example, if the cycle was O->X->S->O, OOXOX would be a win for X). I would like to share these variants on Wikipedia, but they don't have sources. And as a high school student, I can't make anything more than a blog post. Can these types of unopinionated original creative ideas be added? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for your original research, which this clearly would be. Remsense ‥ 论 21:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Tic-tac-toe variant page not supposed to display a list of variant ideas? I, again, created a few entirely on my own that aren't found anywhere else (that I know of). If Wikipedia is not the place, what is? Primius Maximus (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, which roughly means that we present topics in a way that reflects how they are discussed in existing reliable sources. Actually, if you would like to create an educational resource discussing and exploring this subject, I recommend our sister project Wikiversity! Remsense ‥ 论 22:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information from the article: "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice, but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown."[7]

Part of the source says that Polo "was born around 1254 in Venice", other part of the sources says that "exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown".

I assume that the editors combined those two groups of sources and and put informations into one sentence, however in my opinion this is where the synthesis and OR took place. Given that not all sources ie probably none say what the quote from the article says(full context). Some say that Polo was born in Venice, others say that his place of birth is archivally unknown. This wording from the article (given that the context of the birth in Venice is presented as a fact) can also mean that Polo was born in Venice but the exact place (part of the city, suburb, street, etc) is not known archivally.

To avoid the OR context and synthesis and ultimately to respect the sources, I suggest that formulation of the second part of the sentence be like this: "however, there is no archival material which would prove that Polo was born in Venice". I would love to hear your opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that such emphasis would be inappropriate WP:DOUBT and appropriate attribution would be to follow the last paragraph of that subsection ("general consensus") and not give equal validity to options that, as far as I'm aware, have not gained acceptance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to explain a little more clearly because I didn't understand you. Some authors claim that Polo was born in Venice, others that it is not known from the archives where he was born. Otherwise, it is primarily historical information used by some historians. According to you it shouldn't be in the article ie this information? Mikola22 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to phrase the second sentence in a manner that casts doubt on the first unless the source used explicitly does so, and it should be appropriately attributed to indicate the relative prominence of that doubt. If you want to state obliquely that the subject might not be born in Venice, find a secondary source that says that as well as how common that view is. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the article that there are several sources that talk about Korcula ie Dalmatia as the place of birth. However, this is about the fact that there are no archival sources that say where he was born, and this is stated by a couple of sources. Someone put that information in the context of first part of the sentence and his birth in Venice. All together it should be synthesis and OR.

The problem is if it is all together in the context, it is not clear which place is not archivally established, birthplace in Venice, part of Venice, etc. If it cannot be written more clearly, then the two pieces of information should be written separately.

1. "Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice". 2."Exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown, according to some sources it could be Dalmatia, according to others could be Korcula or neither Korcula nor Venice."

This is what can be confirmed from the sources and in such formulation is not a synthesis or OR. Mikola22 (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine#Arbitrary break (Conversion therapy) concerning the source linking SEGM and promotion of conversion therapy. The quote from the relevant source is as follows:

Dr. Malone and fellow SEGM member Dr. Colin Wright have asserted, “Counseling can help gender dysphoric adolescents resolve any trauma or thought processes that have caused them to desire an opposite sexed body.” In my opinion, these statements are transphobic and reductive and favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth. [... rest of the quote is MEDORG notes]

It is asserted that the entire source, post In my opinion, should be excluded as WP:RSOPINION, and that it is WP:SYNTH to consider the quote from Malone and Wright as verifying favor a model of care in which children are encouraged to live as their sex assigned at birth as a factual statement. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article talk page. I have also posted this at WP:NPOVN#SEGM and conversion therapy since both noticeboards seem relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note here as well that the quote as presented in this source removes the opening proviso "But in most cases", which changes the tone somewhat.

Also, I think you are not accurately describing my objection to the subsequent MEDORG statements. It is not an arbitrary claim that "everything after the opinion is opinion". The issue is that what relates the subsequent statements to the quote is a statement of opinion. The form is (paraphrasing):

• Here's a quote
• In my opinion it is conversion therapy
• Here's information about conversion therapy

The MEDORG information is all totally factual - but the basis for presenting the two alongside each other as if they are related is opinion. That added, I welcome some outside input.

Void if removed (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of wars involving Gujarat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The creator, User:JingJongPascal created an originally researched list of supposed wars, inventing the names of supposed wars, and supplying broken citations by copying them from other articles obviously (sfn without the full citation). When asked to identify the source and to quote the part of the source which discusses the ostensible thing which they named "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", they said: there is nothing like that in book. They previously explained that they invented the names of the wars. They then clarified that I should refer to Wikipedia content at Karna I#Other campaigns, which they've linked from "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", to see how whoever edited that article described the event. I was able to connect a paragraph from that section with the purported "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War", based on JingJongPascal's provided "R. B. Singh (1964). History of the Chāhamānas p.125"; the last section has this citation.

The section is as follows:

There is more on User talk:JingJongPascal#List of wars involving Gujarat.

There is no such thing as the "Fourth Gujarat-Rajput War".

The entire list is like this.

—Alalch E. 14:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other "List of wars involving X" pages created by this user are:

• List of wars involving Magadha (contested WP:BLAR; the page is a copy of List of wars involving India)
• List of wars involving the Indian Subcontinent (WP:BLARed as a POV fork by User:NXcrypto)
• List of wars involving India (disambiguation)
• Draft:List of wars involving Hindustan
• Draft:List of wars involving Kerala
• Draft:List of battles involving major India
• Draft:List of wars involving Subash Bose
• Draft:List of wars involving Southern India
• Draft:List of wars involving Jerusalem

—Alalch E. 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what I am supposed to do? Leave it as blank?

I am following common naming conventions

As seen in Maratha-Rajput Wars

Mughal-Rajput Wars , etc.... JingJongPascal (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Ajmer (Chamamans) is an rajput clan (for context) JingJongPascal (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the book and sources simply lay out the belligerents of the war and how it happened they don't mention its name.

So I am supposed to leave it blank? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what you are supposed to do: You are supposed to fundamentally and comprehensively change your approach to editing. You need to understand that what you have been doing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that it can not continue. The pages you have been creating are terrible. —Alalch E. 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me hours I have spend on creating articles which are terrible. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay then why don't you tell me what am I supposed to be naming those conflicts ? I have to leave them blank ? Is that what you want? JingJongPascal (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've already asked that question. Do you think that asking it again makes everything okay and magically makes your original research into valid content? —Alalch E. 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't come to Wikipedia for your personal survey of history. Presenting them with that instead of relating what reliable sources say is a disservice to readers and is a timesink for other editors. Like Alalch said, you need to fundamentally change your process, working from what sources say only and not adding your own analysis or commentary, or inventing your own names for things. Remsense ‥ 论 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me what the hell I am supposed to name them? JingJongPascal (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that if a conflict doesn't have a name, it may not be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic list of conflicts? Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this kingdom isn't very well known, it has only two or three well detailed books , the names of the wars are given in books but in descriptive sense like "Xyz Emperor war against Xyz kingdom"

None of these wars have actual name, I am using basic naming convention

If you found a war between Gupta Empire and Bengal Empire

What would you name it? Obviously Gupta-Bengal War JingJongPascal (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent hours on this list.. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We reflect what reliable sources say; we're not a publishing house for original research. You are not entitled to host your original research here because you spent a lot of time on it, unfortunately. It would have been better if you became aware of this issue sooner. Remsense ‥ 论 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix them, but I will take some time JingJongPascal (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate what other editors have already said what you're doing is original research. You content may be better suited to one of the military wiki's on fandom that don't have Wikipedia's policies on such content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also list of wars involving Magadha is not a copy. I am the one who made it in List of wars involving India aswell as that article. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prostitution statistics by country seems like a mess of OR. It's inconsistent in what metrics are used, population percentages aren't consistently calculated from the same year as the data, and it compares these separate measurements for some countries against each other. Could use a look from editors familiar with statistics type content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the chart as currently constructed is an OR mess. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titius–Bode law contains a lot of discussion on the provenance of one of the cited sources (a 1913 article by Mary Adela Blagg), and devotes a portion of the article to suggest, citing only the Blagg source itself, that the article in the ADS and journal archives is a forgery. It seems to use the information contained in the source, but not in a way the source directly supports. Of course, there's always the possibility that it really is a forgery, though if that's the case I'd personally prefer that statement to come from a source that isn't the 'forgery' itself. Regardless, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know what parts of the discussion of the Blagg paper or the article subject itself should be removed, so I'm wary of messing with the article too much (some parts of the article appear to genuinely discuss the content of the source as intended, but I'm not sure where that starts and ends in the article structure - the forgery suggestions seem mixed in pretty deeply to me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by InkTide (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted to the 2024-07-18 page revision, which seems to be clean. Also left a note on the talk page. Arcorann (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Braune 2019) is cited in the following sentence:

However, since the 1990s, the term "Cultural Marxism" has largely referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory popular among the far right without any clear relationship to Marxist cultural analysis. [emphasis added]

We are currently divided on whether the bolded part constitutes a synthy use of the source. Could editors please take a look and report either here or, preferably, on the Marxist Cultural Analysis talk page, where we have an ongoing discussion? 87.116.182.140 (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most everything written here is original research. The citations are not to experts in ancient Egyptian literature making the claims, but to wholly new claims. It seems that the material dates all the way back to 2008 with the article's inception. A rewrite and better sources is sorely needed, as well as the removal of just a "list" of motifs, the likes of which do not appear in other well-written articles on literature. Chris Weimer (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sentence in Baalbek SYNTH?

"Baalbek is a stronghold of the militant organization Hezbollah, and its tourism sector has encountered challenges due to conflicts in Lebanon, particularly the 1975–1990 civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war since 2011, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)."

Three people think it's not. Two people (including me) think it is. Arguments are in here: Talk:Baalbek#Requesting_explanation_for_revert. FunLater (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue previously came up at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#Are these reliable sources for Baalbek -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this issue correctly, no one disputes these three items: (1) Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold; (2) the tourism industry has had struggles and challenges; (3) RS attribute the tourism industry's struggles and challenges to military conflicts that have occurred. The dispute is over whether in the absence of an RS that explicitly ties the fact that Baalbek is a Hezbollah stronghold to the military conflicts that are one source of problems for the tourism industry, it is SYNTH to tie the Hezbollah-strongholdiness of Baalbek to the tourism problems. If I got all that right, I agree that it is SYNTH. Novellasyes (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the sentence just needs to be split in two. Add a full stop after the part saying it has been a Hezbollah strong hold, that could use some additional details anyway as the sources for that go back decades and aren't just related to current events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before there’s any chapter, the first paragraphs in the article show no reference. Hadjnix 07:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of an article are meant to summarise the rest of the content, so it's not necessary to have to references in the lead. Instead those details should have references found in the main body of the article, which the lead is then summarising.

Leads sometimes have references, usually if a particular detail is controversial, but that's not the norm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, if a source takes the position that having to pay postage when returning a ballot is a constructive poll tax, is this a sufficient basis for claiming that this is a form of voter suppression?

To be clear, there is no claim that every form of voter suppression is illegal, just that there is no "line to draw" as to what constitutes voter suppression and that anything which has a tendency to discourage voting, by definition, constitutes voter suppression to a greater or lesser degree.

Here's the pertinent part of the original discussion from Talk:Voter suppression in the United States#Reconsidering the gist of this article:

I understand from what you are saying here that you do not believe that it is WP:OR to decide that the meaning of the term "voter suppression" is self-evident and does not require further definition. I do believe that it is WP:OR but of course I could be wrong.

The specific ask is presumably that there must be a source which explicitly states that having to put postage on the return envelope may discourage some people from voting (i.e. that this would in fact constitute voter suppression), while my contention would be that this is implicit, particularly when there is no assertion of any countervailing benefit, e.g. in terms of reducing voter fraud. Fabrickator (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The term “Original Research”, as used on Wikipedia, refers to statements, arguments or conclusions not directly stated in any external source (but instead originating on Wikipedia). So, the question here is very simple: is the conclusion that postage constitutes voter suppression found in a source? If so, then it is not OR … if not, then it is OR. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Flat-out OR. EEng 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar and EEng: What about a source stating that the postage requirement imposes a "burden on the right to vote"? Does that also fail to support the claim of "voter suppression"? Fabrickator (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I think ballot envelopes should be postage-prepaid, because who the hell has stamps around the house anymore? But it's not for us to make the jump from "burden" to "suppression". I think you'll find the examples at WP:SYNTH on point. EEng 21:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]