Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Threads older than 28 days may be archived by MiszaBot. |
SYNTH, NPOV
Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WP:NOR (SYNTH), and WP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎
Contrary to a conspiracy theory[1][2] pushed by Trump,[3] Fox News,[4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[5][6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[8] for probable cause.[9]
I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.
The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WP articles are supposed to do.
- Is it SYNTH?
- Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
Judaism
The following passage has been repeatedly restored, or its 'citation needed' markup eliminated by vague allusions to the Enc.Britannica.
Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. <ref name="What is the oral Torah?" /> Historically, all or part of this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period
- The Enc.Brit has two articles, one on (a) Judaism, the other on (b) Rabbinic Judaism. The former encompasses the latter, rabbinic Judaism being a subset of Judaism, for a simple reason: Judaism began several hundred years before rabbinic Judaism, which, yes, became overwhelmingly the dominant form of Judaism. Neither of those articles supports the incoherent synthesis we have here. So what we have is a numbskulled piece of WP:OR posing as reliably sourced. I.e.
In my reading, there is nothing to warrant the unhistorical assertion that a movement that arose in the Ist century ce was challenged by two movements that predate it by some centuries, and which expired before Rabbinic Judaism was formed.Nishidani (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well I read that as 'challenged' in the sense of 'disagreed with', rather than the 'upstart/fringe/newcomer challenging existing authority' which is I think how you are reading it (and can easily be read that way)? I dont think its intentional, just bad wording. I agree completely its a sentence construction that should be worded less ambiguously and in line with the timeline. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it intentional either, but the phrasing does illustrate that the article on Judaism is being written from the viewpoint of its dominant form, as is also shown by the non-RS link to Torah.org (the page linked tells you nothing about the Oral Law, you have to go and explore it. There are hundreds of academic works on all of this, why such an atrocious partisan link? It's a bit like a fervent Catholic writing the history of Christian sects by citing canon law, conflict of interest. My point from the beginning is that it is clumsy, and I gave the citation needed notes (agains eliminated) to ask editors to fix it. No deal.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- ps. I could fix it with several scholarly notes, but everything I add to this area is reverted automatically, with zero talk page explanation. So I'm not going to waste my time working notes up, only to have them chucked down the memory hole.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- And again, note that the Brit Enc. dates the beginning of Judaism to 2000 BCE, giving the fundamentalist viewpoint as factual, once more. No scholarly work exists which would underwrite that notion. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it intentional either, but the phrasing does illustrate that the article on Judaism is being written from the viewpoint of its dominant form, as is also shown by the non-RS link to Torah.org (the page linked tells you nothing about the Oral Law, you have to go and explore it. There are hundreds of academic works on all of this, why such an atrocious partisan link? It's a bit like a fervent Catholic writing the history of Christian sects by citing canon law, conflict of interest. My point from the beginning is that it is clumsy, and I gave the citation needed notes (agains eliminated) to ask editors to fix it. No deal.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to touch that article, but for heavens sake Aish Hatorah aren't reliable for the time of day. Torah.org is a religious site, not a proper source for a neutral encyclopedia. Same with chabad.org. Then we have an argumentative essay by Gil Student, and even a dead link to a defunct Usenet newsgroup FAQ. Britannica is an OK tertiary source but we should only have recourse to such sources when no suitable secondary sources are available, which is not the case here. Zerotalk 09:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've no problem with the EC when the article is signed by an known expert. There are, on this topic, literally several hundred of them the reverter's justification for his addition of this source shows that they are unfamiliar with the relevant scholarship ('Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. This website is reliable for what the Torah says, at least from an Orthodox Jewish point of view.') The bolded part is sheer ignorance. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've no problem with the EC when the article is signed by an known expert. There are, on this topic, literally several hundred of them the reverter's justification for his addition of this source shows that they are unfamiliar with the relevant scholarship ('Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. This website is reliable for what the Torah says, at least from an Orthodox Jewish point of view.') The bolded part is sheer ignorance. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me reframe this query which arose from examining a sentence that combines synthetically two articles from the EB to make a generalization (poorly written).
Let's focus on method and how core policy asks us to source articles. We have several hundred books and articles published each year on Judaism and its ancient history etc. Most are readily available, in libraries or on the net. In this context, is (a) https://torah.org/ Torah.org appropriate as a resource and (b) Should we use snippety articles on the Encyclopedia Britannica online version when, with equal rapidity, one can access up to date recent scholarly articles on everything here?
My view to (a) is no. I'd erase on sight any use of a website on Catholicism as an historical source, and the same should apply here.
As to (b) the default encyclopedia for this specific area is the magnificent Encyclopaedia Judaica which anyone can download, is written by experts, and, unlike the Britannica, is not interfered with by online anonymous contributors. If one is unfamiliar with the scholarship, then that is the encyclopedia to use.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Namaste Trump
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Resolved through editing. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Whole issue revolves around this modification. The word "criticised" is not supported by any reference. Obviously because Criticism is different than that.
Main question is, on Wikipedia, should we describe a statement which is predictable and a part of regular attack against opposition political party as "criticism"? Or just say what source said. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's a shame you chose to bring this argument here, especially given that we have a consensus on the talk page for leaving the edit as it is. However, I'll make the following points. Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) made the point pretty well here when s/he said, "The usage of "criticised" is hardly qualifies as a loaded term and is semantically consistent with "raising objections" and "accusing" in the context. Replacing that with a "described" as you have done on the other hand is inconsistent with the source".
- Ironically, the one who has engaged in original research is you, when you said, "these remarks ultimately shown their own poor understanding of the event.".
- Finally, it's worth pointing out that this IP has been reported to WP:AN3. — Czello 07:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Czello: You appear to be having a gross misunderstanding about what constitutes WP:OR and what is WP:DR. Argument on talk page is exempted from WP:OR but the IP was basing his view on the party's misunderstanding that who organised the show. Ultimately, bringing the query here was a good step to resolve content dispute and this page isn't for complaining about user's conduct.
- As for the original question by the IP, I think he is ultimately correct that "criticism" needs to be sourced. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you feel this is a "gross misunderstanding" of OR. The IP appears to be altering the phrasing because he believes the party has misunderstood something (unless I've misunderstood his edit?). This would appear to be his own interpretation of events finding its way into the article (again, unless I've misunderstood here). I would back the use of the word "criticism", however -- as for the reasoning given by Tayi above. — Czello 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." It doesn't matter how you want to twist the people's personal views, but the requirement of WP:VERIFY has been clearly upheld by the IP, which contrasts with your non-policy based reasoning so far. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, what I meant by this is that the talk page comments were being used as justification for main page edits (basically, like an edit summary). — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Czello are you poisoning the well because you know you are wrong? I was altering the phrase to reflect the source. Whinning by an opposition party does not qualify as "Criticism" unless the source supported the phrase. 2402:3A80:16A9:FD37:E68F:114D:5DA9:46D0 (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked in the past for you to assume good faith, which you seem to struggle with doing, so I'll as you again. This isn't "poisoning the well", it's disagreeing with edits. That's why we're discussing this. — Czello 11:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OR says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." It doesn't matter how you want to twist the people's personal views, but the requirement of WP:VERIFY has been clearly upheld by the IP, which contrasts with your non-policy based reasoning so far. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you feel this is a "gross misunderstanding" of OR. The IP appears to be altering the phrasing because he believes the party has misunderstood something (unless I've misunderstood his edit?). This would appear to be his own interpretation of events finding its way into the article (again, unless I've misunderstood here). I would back the use of the word "criticism", however -- as for the reasoning given by Tayi above. — Czello 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @IP user, Aman.kumar.goel, the Times Now source in question described in great detail how the opposition party had multiple doubts about the whole issue. The title of the article itself says "Congress fumes over extravaganza". I don't see how it is not an accurate summary of the source to describe it as "criticism". In any case, I have added a new source now. Next time please WP:DOITYOURSELF. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
OSM Location maps
A user has been repeatedly removing an OSM location map that I have created at Dhola Post. I have recreated it in my sandbox so that you can actually see it. (OSM location maps don't show when viewing old versions in history.) Despite citing a reliable source and making adjustments as per the source, his objection persists. He says:
There is no "old" or "new" objection. There is only the same objection: the map was created by you and hence violates WP:NOR. Despite your penchant for technicalities, you admit that it was you who marked the locations on the map. You admit that it is you who "interprets old sketch maps." Therefore, the map created by you is WP:OR. The fact that we are arguing whether a map created by you constitutes "original" research is yet another example of the extreme dishonesty and bad faith discussion that you have repeatedly engaged in.
What would you say to that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: As you admit, you created the map. Your excuse that this isn't original research is that your created map is based on a cited, reliable source. Then why not use the map from the reliable source directly?Erik-the-red (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- For reference, I have taken a screenshot of the source map on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) that @Kautilya3: cites here: https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png The differences between the source map and the map created by Kautilya3 are obvious.Erik-the-red (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: The "corrected" map of your creation, which relies on user-sourced location "data," places Khinzemane in India. The actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png on page 139 of Hoffmann (1990) does not.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- The source map does not have any India–China border, whereas OpenStreetMap essentially puts it. So that is not something we can do anything about.
- If you are contesting the location of Khinzemane, then that is what you should discuss. Let me remind you that you thanked me for it.
- The reason for the change is that it is at the end of a foot path in the source. So that is where I placed it on OSM. It is possible that footpath goes longer. Things are not really visible on satellite maps because of the shadow of the mountains. If you would like, we can measure distance (1.5 miles as stated in the source) and place it there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Yes, I did thank you for the edit you made. To repeat what I wrote there, your decision to "correct" your own previously marked location of Khinzemane from being clearly in China 27°48′11″N 91°44′45″E / 27.80295°N 91.7457°E to just inside India 27°47′06″N 91°44′06″E / 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E perfectly demonstrates why the map of your own creation violates WP:NOR.
- Furthermore, you admit that the source map from Hoffmann (1990) does not have any India-China border. Therefore, your own created map violates WP:SYNTH because your own created map "implies a conclusion (Khinzemane is in India) not explicitly stated by any of the sources."Erik-the-red (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care which side of the border it is on. I will be quite happy for you to give me the coordinates for Khinzemane, which I will use as long as it doesn't contradict anything on the page. We are here to get outside input on what constitutes WP:OR in this context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: If you don't particularly care which side of the border it is on, then why not use the original source map from Hoffmann (1990) which does not have any India-China border? No WP:OR violation, no WP:SYNTH violation.Erik-the-red (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa, this user appears to believe that you can copy and paste maps published in books. Can you tell us what we are allowed to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Diannaa Speaking for myself, my position is that if @Kautilya3: is relying on one (singular) map from a reliable source of his own choosing, then the article should use that one (singular) map instead of a map that he created by himself and by his own admission, relies on his "interpretations."Erik-the-red (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to the copyright question, it's not okay to upload scans of maps from copyright books. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: One map does not qualify as fair use?Erik-the-red (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, because freely licensed alternatives are available.— Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: To clarify, the singular map in question refers to a disputed area between two countries. It's not clear to me that there are freely licensed alternatives in this case (or that there would always be freely licensed alternatives in this type of case).Erik-the-red (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, because freely licensed alternatives are available.— Diannaa (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: One map does not qualify as fair use?Erik-the-red (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to the copyright question, it's not okay to upload scans of maps from copyright books. — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: That's the problem: the singular map in question doesn't have longitude/latitude coordinates. So it's not a matter of copying the details to an open source map; instead, it's a matter of guessing the coordinates from the details. For example, @Kautilya3: originally guessed that a certain location was at 27°48′11″N 91°44′45″E / 27.80295°N 91.7457°E and subsequently "corrected" his guess to 27°47′06″N 91°44′06″E / 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E. However, neither of these coordinates are on the actual source map https://i.imgur.com/YCN6h6y.png ; and it just so happens that Kautilya3's "correction" places the location from one side of the disputed border to the other side, a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by the source.
- That is why I'm asking whether including that one, singular map from the actual source constitutes fair use. There are no freely licensed alternatives to my knowledge, and the actual source map does not contain any coordinate details to copy over to an open source map.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Visually copying details (e.g. coordinates or precise locations) from a published map onto open-source maps is naturally guesswork, especially when the locations are in areas with governmental geographic data restrictions (Chinese nation-wide GPS data restrictions and Indian restrictions on areas within 50km of its borders). Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR. Using it for broad imprecise information is fine. — MarkH21talk 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As Diannaa said, since the map in the source is not open sourced, copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SerChevalerie: This is the original map in the source. It has no coordinates and the bottom right has a disclaimer, "sketch not to scale." What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Erik-the-red (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Erik-the-red, the user has admitted to interpreting the map to the best of their abilities. You do not seem to be assuming good faith in his edits. If anything, if you claim to have knowledge of the topic, you should help him to improve upon his work, instead of dismissing it completely as WP:OR. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SerChevalerie: This is the original map in the source. It has no coordinates and the bottom right has a disclaimer, "sketch not to scale." What details can be accurately copied to OSM? Erik-the-red (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SerChevalerie: As I showed you, the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale." So you say
copying the details to OSM while maintaining as much accuracy as possible should be fine
. I asked you,What details can be accurately copied to OSM?
Respectfully, you didn't answer.
- @SerChevalerie: As I showed you, the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale." So you say
- Instead, you said I didn't seem to assume good faith in Kautilya3's edits. That's your opinion, and I won't argue with you on that. But I will ask you, if the original map has no coordinates and is disclaimed with "sketch not to scale," then how exactly can anyone get coordinates precise to 7 decimal places like 27°47′06″N 91°44′06″E / 27.7848997°N 91.7349505°E from such a map?
- Of course, you don't have to answer that either. Either way, I echo MarkH21's comment:
Attempting to use fine details like coordinates based on visually copying the map is WP:OR.
You may not agree with that in every case, but it must apply in this case when the original map has no coordinates and is not to scale. Erik-the-red (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, you don't have to answer that either. Either way, I echo MarkH21's comment:
Unpublished memoir material
I have a copy of a memoir written by a member of a WWII combat unit. It was printed and distributed to other unit members in 1972. The memoir adds details to events during and after the war in Europe. I can provide a PDF of the work. Is this type of firsthand source material acceptable? If so, how does one establish its authenticity for other editors to review and accept?NileCity (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- It would be seen as a primary source and hence could have only limited value even if it were reliable. But ask yourself, are you confident that every date, place name, person's name, regiment name, etc. is accurate? If you were a military historian, you could check the information and use your judgment to determine how reliable the narrative was. Then your paper would be considered a reliable source. But Wikipedia editors are not assumed to have the expertise to do that, so we cannot use it as a source. TFD (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:League of Legends champion
There are concerns that have been raised about whether the article as a whole inappropriately synthesizes information from its sources. Looking for some insight on how to improve the draft.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Frank Ocean - Birth Name
There are multiple reference to Frank Ocean's possible birth name that came from original research by 1 user and this is not cited anywhere else, where there are articles that show his name to be "Christopher Edwin Breaux"[1].
Further, in his songs he uses his legal name for writing credits - "Christopher Breaux [2].
The name Christopher Breaux was used for the songs "Cayendo" [3] and "Dear April" [4] which were released in 2020.
While there may be confusion about his birth name, it is clear he still uses "Christopher Breaux" as his legal name. Thus, shouldn't we only being his legal name, if we can't prove his birth name from a reliable source?
Doublebside (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Doublebside:, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.wmagazine.com/story/frank-ocean-cover-story-interview/
- ^ https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/performer/FRANK%20OCEAN http://repertoire.bmi.com/Catalog.aspx?detail=writerid&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyid=1146702&subid=0
- ^ http://repertoire.bmi.com/DetailView.aspx?detail=titleid&keyid=42824122&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&blnAltTitles=True
- ^ http://repertoire.bmi.com/DetailView.aspx?detail=titleid&keyid=42824125&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&blnAltTitles=True
Popular castles of Scotland
I'm in disagreement with QuakerIlK over whether the methodology and sourcing of Popular castles of Scotland constitutes original research. As far as I can tell, all the sources are primary, and their listings are tallied to arrive at a conclusion that is not in made in any source. I think that matches ours description of synthesis: to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Before I take it to AfD, I'd appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and I will add in my two cents' worth.
- 1) I admit that I am not as experienced a Wikipedian as Vexations is. I'm not sure that should matter, though.
- 2) To start off with, yes, perhaps my work on the article in question is a synthesis of sorts. Let's look at that a little more closely. As the Synthesis of published material rule currently states, it begins with "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Well, to start off with, nearly all of the sources are in agreement on what constitutes the very top of the list. There is general consensus in the sources. Also, as I stated in one of my responses towards vexations in the discussion he/she and I have had on the talk page for the article in question, all anybody has to do to verify the reliability of the list is to take a mere fraction of the sources and tally them up to see if there is a general agreement with the overall list. Moreover, in addition to merely applying the suggestion on synthesization as it currently stands, I think that an underlying question of why the rule currently stands should be considered. Doesn't the rule exist so as to help combat bias in articles published on Wikipedia? I should think so. If that is part of the reason the rule stands, then I think that my article should be judged by - can any bias be proven? In answer to that, I can merely state that I found as many lists as I could at the time. The only ones I didn't use were a handful of ones that were made on Youtube for which no external re-directing source could be found.
- 3) In addition, I also already stated on the talk page for the article in question that I had other types of information, other than the tallying done there, that could be added to show the general agreement of the tallying with other sources of information, just that such information is old (a decade old), and yesterday evening, in fact, I sent a query to the publisher of such information to see if I could obtain more recent figures. I received an e-mail today from said publisher as a follow-up. Terms of agreement are currently being agreed upon as far as that situation is concerned. As I also already stated in the discussion between Vexations and I on the talk page of the article in question, I stated that even when such information is added (as I intend for it to be, and which I shall do as soon as is practicable as possible after I receive said information), there is a bias in that information because, for reasons I stated on the article's talk page and that are easily explainable, financial matters influence that information, and that is a bias.
- 4) If any other experienced Wikipedian has any doubts as to the reliability of the tallying done, perhaps they can suggest to me an easy way to display the results of the tally? Maybe it would help if I constructed a table showing the nominations for each list and providing the citation for each list, so as to add transparency to the article? Also, if anybody has any more such pre-existing sources as the ones I have used that could be added to the information to make it even more inclusive than it already is, they can either add them, themselves, or send me the link/source, and I will be glad to add them. Edited to add Again, I have no problem creating any such table or document, such as what I am suggesting, that would provide transparency to the article, but I can say that it would become so large that it would grossly interfere with the presentation of the article. It would need to be a file of its own that could be displayed or linked-to on the page. In that case, I would need guidance in creating that file. I don't think that the article should be taken down just because of the technical superiority of whatever detractors it might have. I think that it should be the responsibility of more senior editors to provide guidance rather than just strike something down without anywhere near the effort and consideration that a creator demonstrates.
- Thank you for your time and consideration.
- QuakerIlK (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I have made updates to the article. It has been reorganized/restructured, and some wording has been changed. Also, visitor statistics have been added. If anybody has any more questions or comments, please don't hesitate to share them. 2601:6C1:C100:5B70:F88C:D9D2:A9D2:49BA (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd still appreciate feedback from uninvolved editors. Thanks Vexations (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- My uninvolved perspective: this is all original research. None of the grounds cited by QuakerIlK have any basis in policy but point #4 gives the game away: Asking other editors to verify your tallying of these mostly non-reliable website's rankings shows that this is your tally. That is definitely and unambiguously synthesis, not "a synthesis of sorts". I'm trying to come up with some IAR way of saving at least part of this but I cannot identify any. There are other places that this can be published, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention, Eggishorn. To address what you bring up, for one, I recently added the section on visitor statistics, so that is definitely not original research. Also, the tallying done confirms the main observation of the tally - the top 3 are the same, albeit in different order. So, even if one were to say that the tallying is OR, at least it reaches a conclusion re-affirmed by the visitor statistics that were added. There are also other similarities. I also have to question that this is "my tally" - ? It is a tallying that I have done, but it is a tallying that I have done of *all* the *possible* such lists that I could find. There is no bias, and if anybody wants to mount a challenge of bias, I am more than happy to entertain and address that. I also addressed remedies to possible objections to this: 1) If anybody can find any lists/sources that were not included, they can either add them, themselves, or send me the link to the source so that I can add them, myself; and 2) I would really like the *assistance* of somebody on here who has more experience with the technical side of Wikipedia (specifically, creating tables) so that, if there are concerns with *transparency*, I can address them by creating a table that *shows* the tally and how that 100% accurately corresponds with the reporting of the tally.QuakerIlK (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- As it stands right now, in the top paragraph of the article for Wikipedia:No original research, the following is stated. " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. " By adding the visitor statistics information, which corresponds to there being a "top 3" in the tallying to the top 3 in the visitor statistics, itself, that, alone should show the general reliability of the tallying. This has been accomplished. QuakerIlK (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @QuakerIlK:, that is an, well, let's call it "idiosyncratic" reading of the policy you quote. You're going with: "There is sort of sourcing for a top three in some order but those don't agree so I picked an order and I can then count up all the others in my own personal way and say it is not OR"? No. That makes no headway. My advice to you is to first read WP:OWN, WP:BLUDGEON, and Law of holes before you make any other replies. Your position is already well-stated and thoroughly documented and doesn't need any further explication. Every time you refer to "...the general reliability of the tallying..." or similar you further prove that this is your original work that is ineligible for inclusion. You have an obvious and understandable desire to protect and propagate your work but that is the wrong mental model for Wikipedia. This isn't "our" work. It's a dispersed and decentralized community and the work belongs to that community. (Technically, we license every word to the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of this website, but that's neither here nor there.) Frankly, I'm not sure how it is supposed to contribute to the store of human knowledge to know which castles in Scotland are most frequently mentioned on a sample of websites that have little to no value as references but I do know that this is not the place for it. If you want to tally your own list of castles mentioned on popular websites, you need to create your own website or blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fine article for somewhere else, QuakerIlK, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's all original research, just as Eggishorn explains. I have proposed it for deletion. Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
- I will comment more, later. But for now I have a question I have repeatedly been posing (that I'm now going to be more specific about) that I would like to have answered by somebody. Is there *any* table, or coding that can be added to a table, on Wikipedia that will do summations over a column or any kind of math? QuakerIlK (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on tables, @QuakerIlK: so I can't answer this specific question. There's a larger issue here which is fundamental that you're just not understanding. It doesn't matter how these results are tallied, it matters that these results are tallied. No-one is stating this is OR because you added 1+1 and got 3. This is OR because you're doing the calculation at all. You decided this was a question that needed answering, you decided what the ranking criteria were, you selected the corpus from which the data was pulled, you selected the data points, and you analyzed the data. Those actions make this your original research. If it sounds like I broke that down just to emphasize through repetition, well, I did. Those are the same steps that any original research paper goes through (hypothesis, methods, results, analysis). The mechanics of the calculation are immaterial and there is no way to "save" this just by tweaking the tables. In trying to claim this article can squeak through loopholes in the WP:OR policy, you've lost sight of the Core Content Policies:
No original research (WP:NOR) – Wikipedia does not publish original thought... the policy should apply to any editor trying to introduce his or her own views into an article.
This might not be per se as disruptive as trying to introduce an idiosyncratic new version of physics (which is why the policy was created) but nevertheless Wikipedia has determined that it is not the place where new ideas should be published. This "objective" ranking of castles based on website mentions is a new idea. I hope I've explained the policy more thoroughly and its application to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on tables, @QuakerIlK: so I can't answer this specific question. There's a larger issue here which is fundamental that you're just not understanding. It doesn't matter how these results are tallied, it matters that these results are tallied. No-one is stating this is OR because you added 1+1 and got 3. This is OR because you're doing the calculation at all. You decided this was a question that needed answering, you decided what the ranking criteria were, you selected the corpus from which the data was pulled, you selected the data points, and you analyzed the data. Those actions make this your original research. If it sounds like I broke that down just to emphasize through repetition, well, I did. Those are the same steps that any original research paper goes through (hypothesis, methods, results, analysis). The mechanics of the calculation are immaterial and there is no way to "save" this just by tweaking the tables. In trying to claim this article can squeak through loopholes in the WP:OR policy, you've lost sight of the Core Content Policies:
- I will comment more, later. But for now I have a question I have repeatedly been posing (that I'm now going to be more specific about) that I would like to have answered by somebody. Is there *any* table, or coding that can be added to a table, on Wikipedia that will do summations over a column or any kind of math? QuakerIlK (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a fine article for somewhere else, QuakerIlK, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's all original research, just as Eggishorn explains. I have proposed it for deletion. Bishonen | tålk 15:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
- @QuakerIlK:, that is an, well, let's call it "idiosyncratic" reading of the policy you quote. You're going with: "There is sort of sourcing for a top three in some order but those don't agree so I picked an order and I can then count up all the others in my own personal way and say it is not OR"? No. That makes no headway. My advice to you is to first read WP:OWN, WP:BLUDGEON, and Law of holes before you make any other replies. Your position is already well-stated and thoroughly documented and doesn't need any further explication. Every time you refer to "...the general reliability of the tallying..." or similar you further prove that this is your original work that is ineligible for inclusion. You have an obvious and understandable desire to protect and propagate your work but that is the wrong mental model for Wikipedia. This isn't "our" work. It's a dispersed and decentralized community and the work belongs to that community. (Technically, we license every word to the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of this website, but that's neither here nor there.) Frankly, I'm not sure how it is supposed to contribute to the store of human knowledge to know which castles in Scotland are most frequently mentioned on a sample of websites that have little to no value as references but I do know that this is not the place for it. If you want to tally your own list of castles mentioned on popular websites, you need to create your own website or blog. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- My uninvolved perspective: this is all original research. None of the grounds cited by QuakerIlK have any basis in policy but point #4 gives the game away: Asking other editors to verify your tallying of these mostly non-reliable website's rankings shows that this is your tally. That is definitely and unambiguously synthesis, not "a synthesis of sorts". I'm trying to come up with some IAR way of saving at least part of this but I cannot identify any. There are other places that this can be published, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's OR. The article provides an implicit weighting to the lists used as sourced: They are weighted equally. But it is a reasonable guess that they are not of equal weight and furthermore that even if they are there is a subjective element. How can we say that because the average rating of a castle is say #10, that it should be number ten on our list?
- In similar articles, we generally use one list as a source, which avoids OR, but the list itself must be notable. I'm thinking of things such as the AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars.
- TFD (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Conceivably, this might skate by if it avoided inventing a ranking system. I could imagine a List of castles in Scotland considered among the best which perhaps included any castle in a reliable source's top ten list, or, more simply List of castles in Scotland considered the best, which only includes castles ranked #1 on some reliable list. There's some precedent for this at List of films considered the best and List of music considered the worst. pburka (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- The creator, QuakerIlK, had already put a lot of work into the article, I'm sure, and after I PRODded it, they worked some more and have now removed my PROD. Unfortunately, I can't agree with them that the latest additions stop the article from being OR, so I've taken it to AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular castles of Scotland. Bishonen | tålk 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC).
RfC at A.C.A.B.
More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. Crossroads -talk- 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)