Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Curious to hear opinions about this from editors who are more versed in what "synthesis" is and isn't on Wikipedia. I thought I knew but reading WP:NOR from top to bottom I'm not sure anymore. More details on article talk page.Prezbo (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that just be socialism with Chinese characteristics? Aydoh8[contribs] 15:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I think there have been discussions along those lines on various talk pages. My question is a little different but probably not easily answerable given the nature of Wikipedia. Prezbo (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think your analysis on the talk page is correct. The article should be rewritten to prioritize scholarly views, not those of MLM groups. There is a milieu of scholarly Left journals that may be RS for this topic, despite not necessarily being general RS (e.g. International Socialist Review), but that's not what's being cited in this article, which are mostly just statements by various MLM groups. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- One of my difficulties here is that I think half the time Wikipedia only functions as well as it does in spite of its policies, not because of them. I think the sources you describe may be helpful but I’m not bold enough to stubify the article Prezbo (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, there’s almost certainly reliable coverage in “mainstream” academic history and social sciences publications as well, I only point out the category of scholarly Left reviews because they could be fairly easily confused with the less reliable, more propagandistic literature put out by these groups, which are currently the lion’s share of that article’s bibliography signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I’m less optimistic…I think an article written from mainstream sources might be worse (further from reality) than the current one…I may try writing one as an experiment. Thanks for your input. Prezbo (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, there’s almost certainly reliable coverage in “mainstream” academic history and social sciences publications as well, I only point out the category of scholarly Left reviews because they could be fairly easily confused with the less reliable, more propagandistic literature put out by these groups, which are currently the lion’s share of that article’s bibliography signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- One of my difficulties here is that I think half the time Wikipedia only functions as well as it does in spite of its policies, not because of them. I think the sources you describe may be helpful but I’m not bold enough to stubify the article Prezbo (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think your analysis on the talk page is correct. The article should be rewritten to prioritize scholarly views, not those of MLM groups. There is a milieu of scholarly Left journals that may be RS for this topic, despite not necessarily being general RS (e.g. International Socialist Review), but that's not what's being cited in this article, which are mostly just statements by various MLM groups. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I think there have been discussions along those lines on various talk pages. My question is a little different but probably not easily answerable given the nature of Wikipedia. Prezbo (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I'll note that this is a confusing and potentially misleading title. The subject of the article is not Maoism as a whole, but on a subset of that ideology, the ideology (or maybe ideologies) of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and its member organizations. Perhaps this material should simply be merged back into that article? If not, I think retitling the article with "(Revolutionary Internationalist Movement)" in parentheses to clarify what the subject of the article actually is. Peter G Werner (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- There was a recent failed motion to merge it into Maoism which might be a good idea but I haven't read the discussion archives. Merging to RIM or retitling it as you suggest makes less sense to me...if nothing else, the literature around some of RIM's member organizations (Shining Path, RCP-USA, CPN-M Nepal) is much bigger than the literature around RIM itself. Anyway rather than talking about mergers or titles I think it's more productive to talk about how the article content itself might be improved. Prezbo (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
An article on MLM is definitely needed, it's been a problem in many articles over a long time to handle categorization schemes and links to ideology without being able to separate MLMTT and MLM. If we understand 'MLMTT, commonly referred to as "Maoism"' as the main subject for the article Maoism then MLM need to have a separate article. And MLM cannot be equated with RIM, RIM is now defunct and the concept of MLM is used outside of just ex-RIM organizations. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the current article is a house of cards with respect to Wikipedia's actual policies. Prezbo (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal could function as a good ref (roughly pages 185-189), but I only have it in snippet view. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think there are a few scholarly sources out there, they're just not online. I may go to an actual library for this one. But there's no way we could construct anything like the current article from scholarly sources. It would probably end up being like three paragraphs. Prezbo (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal could function as a good ref (roughly pages 185-189), but I only have it in snippet view. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Third opinion welcome on whether content is original research
[edit][1] I'd like a third opinion as to whether content added by this edit falls under original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I looked at it but did not see anything obvious, can you explain what makes you think it could be OR? Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article has changed a bit but for example this passage: In 1844, that land was transferred to Robert Hunt, who primarily used it tp harvest kauri gum deposits. is sourced to: [2] there is no mention of the specific land that Hunt bought, nor mention of the land in question being Bayswater. It also contains no references to Kauri gum.
- The claim of the first ferry departure is sourced to this: [3] which makes no claim of it being first and it is an advertisement.
- There are other examples but typically most of the claims go beyond what the source states and involve interpretation of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Video game music
[edit]Numerous paragraghs of substantial length in Video game music have no sources; nothing cited, no references given. I have tagged several of these in this section: Early_digital_synthesis_and_sampling and am interested to learn if that content represents "original research". azwaldo (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, we define original research as claims that aren't verifiable in reliable sources. Merely uncited material can be often be (and is usually encouraged to be) cited rather than removed. However, culture trivia like this is often of marginal utility or otherwise unencyclopedic even if it is verifiable, but these need to be weighed individually. Remsense ‥ 论 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Unverified is not unverifiable. So much to say that is lacking support...seemed it might be personal accounting. Thanks for the quick reply. azwaldo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
White Mexicans and blood type
[edit]There are a lot of OR and SYNTH issues in the White Mexicans article, but to focus on one at a time: White Mexicans#Distribution and estimations includes two relatively big tables of blood type distributions in different locations in Mexico. This info was added by Pob3qu3 (talk · contribs) a few years ago. I'm not getting anywhere trying to explain the problem on the talk page, so would appreciate some additional perspectives.
None of the three cited sources directly connect this specific data to 'White Mexicans':
- "Cruz Roja Espanola/Grupos Sanguineos". Donarsangre.org. Archived from the original on October 19, 2020. Retrieved July 15, 2019.
This is an info page for a blood bank in Spain which doesn't mention Mexico at all, or white people, or really anything directly relevant to the topic. According Pob3qu3 on the talk page, the source is to demonstrate that "the "O" blood type exists in Europe" but the source doesn't explain the connection.
- del Peón-Hidalgo, Lorenzo; Pacheco-Cano, Ma Guadalupe; Zavala-Ruiz, Mirna; Madueño-López, Alejandro; García-González, Adolfo (September 2002). "Frecuencias de grupos sanguíneos e incompatibilidades ABO y RhD, en La Paz, Baja California Sur, México" [Blood group frequencies and ABO and RhD incompatibilities in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico]. Salud Pública de México (in Spanish). 44 (5): 406–412. doi:10.1590/S0036-36342002000500004. PMID 12389483.
The DOI link is broken, but the journal's site includes a PDF on this page. This is a dense medical source. The source does discuss ethnicity and race a bit, but emphasizes that the topic is very complicated and makes no relevant claims about 'White Mexicans' or Mexicans of European ancestry.
- Canizalez-Román, A; Campos-Romero, A; Castro-Sánchez, JA; López-Martínez, MA; Andrade-Muñoz, FJ; Cruz-Zamudio, CK; Ortíz-Espinoza, TG; León-Sicairos, N; Gaudrón Llanos, AM; Velázquez-Román, J; Flores-Villaseñor, H; Muro-Amador, S; Martínez-García, JJ; Alcántar-Fernández, J (2018). "Blood Groups Distribution and Gene Diversity of the ABO and Rh (D) Loci in the Mexican Population". BioMed Research International. 2018: 1925619. doi:10.1155/2018/1925619. PMC 5937518. PMID 29850485.
The source mentions European ancestry once, almost in passing, without making any specific claims about how this relates to blood type. It doesn't mention 'white'. The source makes no direct claims about how this information relates to the topic of the article, but the authors say that their own study "is expected to generate deep interest in ethnologists and anthropologists" (so humble).
After the tables is an uncited paragraph which starts: Both studies find similar trends regarding the distribution of different blood groups, with foreign blood groups being more common in the North and Western regions of Mexico, which is congruent with the findings of genetic studies that have been made in the country through the years and could be attributed to different factors like migrations, nonrandom mating, and infectious diseases among others...
As far as I can tell, this is all original research and the article does a very poor job of defining what a "foreign blood group" is. For some additional background, Race (human categorization)#Clines helpfully explain why blood type is not a good proxy for race. Whether or not this is a WP:MEDRS issue, these are WP:PRIMARY medical sources. We need to summarize what sources are saying, not just what they are implying.
Courtesy ping to @Moxy:, who added the OR tag to the article earlier today. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I looked at the article White Mexicans only briefly and the majority of the article is about mixed European descent from Spain. To me this seems redundant to La Raza while using the term "white" without sufficient explanation of its significance as an independently notable topic. Ben Azura (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- It used to be at Mexicans of European descent. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans of European descent might explain some of this history, or maybe not, I'm burned out on it for now. The article is written under the assumption that "white" is a pass/fail state that can be accurately measured, but from what I've seen, the article's own source don't really buy into that. Even before the lead is finished the article dives deep into primary genetics studies. Like I said, there are a lot of issues. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've had similar conversations with this user on their talk page (User talk:Pob3qu3 § December 2024) which simply went in circles as they refused to accept what they were doing was SYNTH and that CALC didn't work the way they were implying it did. I've been monitoring Mexico but they apparently moved on from editing over there, and moved to this page now. Extremely frustrating and multiple editors seem to have provided an abundance of good faith towards this editor and I'm discouraged to see that it is still occurring, just on a different page. TiggerJay (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Grayfell, you say here that the sources do not make a connection with diversity of blood types to White Mexicans, yet you have acknowledged in the talk page for White Mexicans that the second source indeed does mention that "blood type can give an idea of the amount of foreign influence in the country" so I have to ask you: which ethnic group do you think "foreign influence" referes to? consider that only one non-Amerindian foreign ethnic group has had a massive influence on Mexico's modern ethnic composition. On a friendlier note, I feel your complaint about the introduction's last paragraph mentioning genetic studies, I have actually wanted to move the content of that paragraph to the body of the article for some time now but haven't done so to avoid starting edit conflicts (because there are well known editors out there who love starting conflicts in Mexico articles under any reason, using multiple accounts[4][5]). Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The phrase "foreign influence" comes from you, not me, and not the cited sources. Here's the quote I used on the talk page:
Moreover, blood antigens had been used to evaluate ethnic diversity of human populations, for which they have been widely studied in population genetics
.[6] If "they have been widely studied" for the topic White Mexicans, cite and summarize what those studies are saying. A source which sort-of implies the existence of a bunch of related studies is not good enough. That article isn't about blood antigens, and it isn't about ethnic diversity, it is about 'White Mexicans'. The source says almost nothing at all about White Mexicans as a specific group. Using these studies to imply specific numbers for one specific ethnic group is original research. - Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get distracted on small technicalities, adding prose is allowed and encouraged when writting articles on Wikipedia. The main point here is that the document does attribute the higher rates of diversity on blood types in the North and Western regions of the country to migration, multiple times. You have acknowledged this before and just qouted an example here[7], and here[8] I just quoted another. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- This misrepresents or ignores what I have said. Your additions are using borderline sources to include tangentially-related content. This is also a WP:FRINGE issue, as this is implying that blood type is a proxy for race. The article isn't about rates of diversity in Mexico in general, it is specifically about 'white Mexicans'. This isn't a small technicality. Using your own understanding of the topic to link together multiple sources to support a specific point is original research. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- There's already a sentence in the paragraph that introduces the tables that says that they shouldn't be used as a proxy for race you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- If the article says they shouldn't be a proxy for race, and the specific sources do not use them as a proxy for race, and sources in general say they shouldn't be used as a proxy for race, than listing them in the article as if they were a proxy for race is both original research and also editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- As I told you in the talk page of the article, I'm certain (even more so now than I did days ago) that to remove that sentence would be counterproductive for you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Have you forgotten what this noticeboard is for? What sentence? The article does a piss-poor job of explaining that blood type isn't a proxy for race. At best it just sort of rambles a bit about how it isn't "exact" (as if anything could be exact). The only source for most of that paragraph is a blood bank's website which doesn't mention race or Mexico at all, which is a dead giveaway that this is original research. I am not arguing for removing one sentence, I am arguing for removing both paragraphs and both bloated tables, since they are a mess of OR which misrepresents sources to reify biological race. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- You are starting to act on an extremely erratical manner now, how can you seriously claim that a source that is literally an study about blood types in Mexico and that attributes higher frequecies of different blood types to immigration do not mentions about Mexico at all? What are you even doing at this point? Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This source is used for most of a paragraph. It the website for a blood bank in Spain and doesn't mention Mexico, nor does it mention race or whiteness or European ancestry. The entire paragraph following that one doesn't have any citations at all. These issues are directly relevant to this noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I see now, the only statement that source is used for is for the frequency of blood types in Spain, so its fine, all other statements (including the paragraph below the tables) are found in the source about Mexico, this is with exception of the disclaimer that we've talked about before, which can be removed but as I've said two times before now, may be counterproductive for you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Again, no cited source mentions any connection between blood type in modern Spain and the proportions of European ancestry in different states of Mexico. That's what makes this SYNTH. The source doesn't belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Let me be more clear here, the source about frequency of blood types in Spain is being used only for the Spain claim, it is not being used to back up the "...shouldn't be taken as literal estimations..." part, that part can go, but as I said before, you are probably going to backtrack on that edit (just like you are doing on the "about one-third" edit right now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Again, no cited source mentions any connection between blood type in modern Spain and the proportions of European ancestry in different states of Mexico. That's what makes this SYNTH. The source doesn't belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh I see now, the only statement that source is used for is for the frequency of blood types in Spain, so its fine, all other statements (including the paragraph below the tables) are found in the source about Mexico, this is with exception of the disclaimer that we've talked about before, which can be removed but as I've said two times before now, may be counterproductive for you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- This source is used for most of a paragraph. It the website for a blood bank in Spain and doesn't mention Mexico, nor does it mention race or whiteness or European ancestry. The entire paragraph following that one doesn't have any citations at all. These issues are directly relevant to this noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- You are starting to act on an extremely erratical manner now, how can you seriously claim that a source that is literally an study about blood types in Mexico and that attributes higher frequecies of different blood types to immigration do not mentions about Mexico at all? What are you even doing at this point? Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Have you forgotten what this noticeboard is for? What sentence? The article does a piss-poor job of explaining that blood type isn't a proxy for race. At best it just sort of rambles a bit about how it isn't "exact" (as if anything could be exact). The only source for most of that paragraph is a blood bank's website which doesn't mention race or Mexico at all, which is a dead giveaway that this is original research. I am not arguing for removing one sentence, I am arguing for removing both paragraphs and both bloated tables, since they are a mess of OR which misrepresents sources to reify biological race. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- As I told you in the talk page of the article, I'm certain (even more so now than I did days ago) that to remove that sentence would be counterproductive for you. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- If the article says they shouldn't be a proxy for race, and the specific sources do not use them as a proxy for race, and sources in general say they shouldn't be used as a proxy for race, than listing them in the article as if they were a proxy for race is both original research and also editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- There's already a sentence in the paragraph that introduces the tables that says that they shouldn't be used as a proxy for race you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- This misrepresents or ignores what I have said. Your additions are using borderline sources to include tangentially-related content. This is also a WP:FRINGE issue, as this is implying that blood type is a proxy for race. The article isn't about rates of diversity in Mexico in general, it is specifically about 'white Mexicans'. This isn't a small technicality. Using your own understanding of the topic to link together multiple sources to support a specific point is original research. Grayfell (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get distracted on small technicalities, adding prose is allowed and encouraged when writting articles on Wikipedia. The main point here is that the document does attribute the higher rates of diversity on blood types in the North and Western regions of the country to migration, multiple times. You have acknowledged this before and just qouted an example here[7], and here[8] I just quoted another. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The phrase "foreign influence" comes from you, not me, and not the cited sources. Here's the quote I used on the talk page:
- Did not receive my ping for :-( Found this through User talk:Pob3qu3 - were I see OR has been a concern for years. Makes me feel that the convention at Talk:European emigration#Mexico and false sources has been useless as they have been through this many times. Added OR tag to White Mexicans because as a whole sentence after sentence is based on synthesis of multiple sources (as outlined abovee).Moxy🍁 04:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, more than an OR concern what has been going on Mexico-related articles for years is very bad cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I am confident on saying this because of the Sockpuppet investigations I linked days ago here, this SPI[9] specially on this sub-report[10] is full of blocked sockpuppets who all used unbeliably bad leves of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as their main arguing strategy, much proxy usage was found too. Seems there are editors who have been hyper-fixated on creating discussions on ethnicity/Mexico related articles for years. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Omg this original research problem goes back a decade. I think I remember reverting this individual a few times now I'm thinking I was in the wrong for doing so. Going to take some time and do some research this may take a week to a month and then I'll bring everything forth to the article. Moxy🍁 05:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be gathering some information and doing some research in the meantime too!. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you re-adding the same thing despite four separate editors raising concerns in the past few months? Moxy🍁 02:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Only one editor has complained about blood type, may you have replied on the incorrect page. If you mean the interpretation of Brittanica, well that is because of the unbelieveable high/bad levels of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT they exhibit, for example Grayfell was the one that added the "about one-third" thing to the article[11] (which I welcomed) only to backtrack and pretend that the source cannot be read as that, you are also incurring on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you keep removing it[12] despite having acknowledged that according to Brittanica White Mexicans are at least 31% of the population. Its almost a duty for editors on Wikipedia that are actually in the site out of good faith to oppose that kind edits/behaviors. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- User:Guy Macon/One against many Moxy🍁 03:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've personally found that Sockpuppet investigations are the most helpful resource on this kind of cases, as it's been proven again and again that "they" aren't that many [13], just imagine, if I have backed down years ago all the mess and severe vandalism exhibited in that SPI wouldn't have been discovered, while there still are problems on vandalism in race/ethnicity articles, it has dropped significantly on all race/ethnicity article since I oppened that particular SPI. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand why the shock puppet is so persistent they're trying to correct an obvious misrepresentation of the sources for years apparently. Moxy🍁 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Is it really plausible to think that the sockpuppeter is really the "good one" here and that he is trying to "correct" something when he also commits massive amounts of vandalism and adds several racist insults against several nationalities and races again and again? I mean, he has that many accounts blocked[14] for a good reason Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think I understand why the shock puppet is so persistent they're trying to correct an obvious misrepresentation of the sources for years apparently. Moxy🍁 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've personally found that Sockpuppet investigations are the most helpful resource on this kind of cases, as it's been proven again and again that "they" aren't that many [13], just imagine, if I have backed down years ago all the mess and severe vandalism exhibited in that SPI wouldn't have been discovered, while there still are problems on vandalism in race/ethnicity articles, it has dropped significantly on all race/ethnicity article since I oppened that particular SPI. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I have complained to you directly about your WP:OR and WP:CALC issues as well. The fact that a sock might have disagreed with you does not change the fact that other editors have expressed concerns about your style of contribution. TiggerJay (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- True, but is important to remark that in the end you and me agreed to leave it as 32%, the current problem here is that Grayfell and Moxy do not even want that despite having agreed to it or similar figures mere days earlier. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- agreed to leave it as 32%, ???? User talk:Pob3qu3#December 2024 Moxy🍁 17:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that's how it was written before you and Grayfell begun performing blatantly coordinated edits on the articles so I'm reverting the Mexico-related parts to it, this should settle this conflict. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- There was no agreement on your talk page with regards to the page Mexico, other than to leave it as it was stable prior to your editing, any belief to the contrary would be incorrect. TiggerJay (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Then there should be no issue on reverting to the estable version, this is becoming too much of a problem for something that is essentially the same (32% or one-third). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Now we have accusations of collusion and reinstating the disputed content in multiple places despite multiple people raising concerns. Wonder if we should seek a topic ban before an an outright block is issued for casting aspirations and edit warning. This is moving from concerns of source interpretation to outright aggressive behavior. Moxy🍁 02:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should leave it as it was before the conflict started and move on. If I'm raising concerns about meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry is because there are way too many by now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- That should be your hint that there's something really wrong .... multiple people have brought up the fact sources don't imply what you believe they say..... This has resulted in multiple people reverting you because editors are trying to remove false information. Moxy🍁 02:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems there was something really wrong with changing 32% to "about one-third" which is why I returned it to 32%, I'm surprised of how big of a problem it turned out to be and how I wasn't even the one to initially perform said change but another edito(Grayfell)[15] who then backtracked and caused all this mess. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously you're not understanding the sources or the problems people are raising overall about multiple sources covering multiple articles over an extended period of time. Concerned about competency at this point.... not sure the best way forward. Moxy🍁 02:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moxy according to yourself, three days ago, the Brittanica source gives at least 31% for White Mexicans or others[16], according to Grayfell himself it's about one third [17], how am I not understanding the source by writting it as 32% (which was up in the article for quite a while)? Furthermore other issue here are editors like Remsense who are removing it altogether, which is completely unjustifiable, the best way forward is to stop trying to remove good sources because you personally dislike them. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Whites and others. Nowhere does it say 32%, are white nowhere at all not one source you've presented says this. Compiling sources for a review at the main Mexican article... thus far can't find anything more than 20%. Could this be a language barrier? Moxy🍁 03:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- We Already went through that in the talk page of European emigration, others are no more than 0.5 percent of the population, at the point that yourself propposed to write in Whites as "thrirty percent" of the population[18] (this is what I mean when I raise concerns of bad faith from your part, you acknowledged this figure before but right now you are saying that you can't find a figure higher than 20%) also if you want sources regarding White mexicans I have various, this one for example [19] which I linked in the European emigration talk page that states in the page 5 that Mexicans with non-European features are 64.8% of the population article (you stopped replying after I linked it). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please explain how page 5 of that source supports this specific "64.8%" number. I'm looking at it right now and I still don't see it. I've asked you multiple times to explain this on the European emigration talk page. Lacking any other clues to go by, I'll remind you that "morenas" is not the same as 'non-European features' unless a reliable source directly says that (but that's not on page 5 anyway).
- The "0.5%" number is a fabrication. The Britannica source doesn't say that. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even support White Mexicans being the majority of this 'Other' category, it just says they are 'significant'. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You got it wrong, the 64.8% is the percentage on the population that does not have "physical features like those of people from European and North American countries (AKA Whites)" the text that says this appears below the pie chart (on page 3 not 5) that says 64.8%. Also the reply was for Moxy, why do you always intercede on behalf of Moxy on this point anyway?. Also how come that you now think that Whites are not the majority of the remainder group when you literally wrote it that way on the European emigration article[20]? (on which you changed mestizos from three-fifths to two thirds despite claiming to be extremely adamant on verifiability) backtracking again like you did with the acknowledgement of the "about one-third" figure?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- That page doesn't say "64.8%". You cite the wrong page and give the wrong number, and use that made-up number for original research, but sure, keep saying I'm the one who got it wrong...
- I said "strictly speaking" for a reason. I'm not saying that Whites are not the majority of the other group, I am saying that the cited source doesn't directly support this. Do you understand what "original research" means on Wikipedia? I wrote it that way to keep it readable and as a compromise. We have to go by what sources say, that's the entire point of this discussion, this noticeboard, and Wikipedia itself. If we get better sources, we should summarize those properly, instead of the current Frankenstein's monster of an article. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well the page 3 "exactly" says "64 percent" but that would make the percentage of the segment of Mexico's population that hasp characteristics/physical features that are more related to Europe or North America slightly bigger you know. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You got it wrong, the 64.8% is the percentage on the population that does not have "physical features like those of people from European and North American countries (AKA Whites)" the text that says this appears below the pie chart (on page 3 not 5) that says 64.8%. Also the reply was for Moxy, why do you always intercede on behalf of Moxy on this point anyway?. Also how come that you now think that Whites are not the majority of the remainder group when you literally wrote it that way on the European emigration article[20]? (on which you changed mestizos from three-fifths to two thirds despite claiming to be extremely adamant on verifiability) backtracking again like you did with the acknowledgement of the "about one-third" figure?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- We Already went through that in the talk page of European emigration, others are no more than 0.5 percent of the population, at the point that yourself propposed to write in Whites as "thrirty percent" of the population[18] (this is what I mean when I raise concerns of bad faith from your part, you acknowledged this figure before but right now you are saying that you can't find a figure higher than 20%) also if you want sources regarding White mexicans I have various, this one for example [19] which I linked in the European emigration talk page that states in the page 5 that Mexicans with non-European features are 64.8% of the population article (you stopped replying after I linked it). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Whites and others. Nowhere does it say 32%, are white nowhere at all not one source you've presented says this. Compiling sources for a review at the main Mexican article... thus far can't find anything more than 20%. Could this be a language barrier? Moxy🍁 03:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Moxy according to yourself, three days ago, the Brittanica source gives at least 31% for White Mexicans or others[16], according to Grayfell himself it's about one third [17], how am I not understanding the source by writting it as 32% (which was up in the article for quite a while)? Furthermore other issue here are editors like Remsense who are removing it altogether, which is completely unjustifiable, the best way forward is to stop trying to remove good sources because you personally dislike them. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have to conclude that none of your representations of other editors' behavior or stated concerns are being made in good faith. Given how immediately it is disproven by reading the thread, your repeated claim that the controversy regarding your edits primarily concerns "whether '32%' is changed to 'about one-third'" is one of the most immodest lies I've seen on here. Whether sockpuppetry is afoot is clearly immaterial at this point. Remsense ‥ 论 03:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well Remsense, in what respects Moxy and Grayfell, both of them are currently removing sources arguing that it failed verification despite having acknowledged/verified the content of the source before (as i said on my previous reply, Moxy acknowledged at least 31%[21] and Grayfell acknowledged "about one-third"[22]), with no mention that the fact that they are performing the same edits on different articles [23][24] and are helping each other[25] to keep their versions which up suggests that there's at least some meatpuppetry happening, which is relevant as it keeps this conflict going don't you think?. In what respects to you, I find strange that you are falling in such behaviors, you may not be aware but are restoring to a version that removes a reliable source (Brittanica) altogether[26][27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pob3qu3 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously you're not understanding the sources or the problems people are raising overall about multiple sources covering multiple articles over an extended period of time. Concerned about competency at this point.... not sure the best way forward. Moxy🍁 02:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- It seems there was something really wrong with changing 32% to "about one-third" which is why I returned it to 32%, I'm surprised of how big of a problem it turned out to be and how I wasn't even the one to initially perform said change but another edito(Grayfell)[15] who then backtracked and caused all this mess. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- That should be your hint that there's something really wrong .... multiple people have brought up the fact sources don't imply what you believe they say..... This has resulted in multiple people reverting you because editors are trying to remove false information. Moxy🍁 02:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should leave it as it was before the conflict started and move on. If I'm raising concerns about meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry is because there are way too many by now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Now we have accusations of collusion and reinstating the disputed content in multiple places despite multiple people raising concerns. Wonder if we should seek a topic ban before an an outright block is issued for casting aspirations and edit warning. This is moving from concerns of source interpretation to outright aggressive behavior. Moxy🍁 02:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Then there should be no issue on reverting to the estable version, this is becoming too much of a problem for something that is essentially the same (32% or one-third). Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- agreed to leave it as 32%, ???? User talk:Pob3qu3#December 2024 Moxy🍁 17:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- True, but is important to remark that in the end you and me agreed to leave it as 32%, the current problem here is that Grayfell and Moxy do not even want that despite having agreed to it or similar figures mere days earlier. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- User:Guy Macon/One against many Moxy🍁 03:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Only one editor has complained about blood type, may you have replied on the incorrect page. If you mean the interpretation of Brittanica, well that is because of the unbelieveable high/bad levels of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT they exhibit, for example Grayfell was the one that added the "about one-third" thing to the article[11] (which I welcomed) only to backtrack and pretend that the source cannot be read as that, you are also incurring on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you keep removing it[12] despite having acknowledged that according to Brittanica White Mexicans are at least 31% of the population. Its almost a duty for editors on Wikipedia that are actually in the site out of good faith to oppose that kind edits/behaviors. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why are you re-adding the same thing despite four separate editors raising concerns in the past few months? Moxy🍁 02:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll be gathering some information and doing some research in the meantime too!. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Omg this original research problem goes back a decade. I think I remember reverting this individual a few times now I'm thinking I was in the wrong for doing so. Going to take some time and do some research this may take a week to a month and then I'll bring everything forth to the article. Moxy🍁 05:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, more than an OR concern what has been going on Mexico-related articles for years is very bad cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I am confident on saying this because of the Sockpuppet investigations I linked days ago here, this SPI[9] specially on this sub-report[10] is full of blocked sockpuppets who all used unbeliably bad leves of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as their main arguing strategy, much proxy usage was found too. Seems there are editors who have been hyper-fixated on creating discussions on ethnicity/Mexico related articles for years. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I think at some point I changed '32%' to 'one-third' in some specific context where it was false precision. There is no single pass/fail definition of "White Mexicans" so providing a specific number is potentially misleading. I think I mistakenly assumed that the 32% number was supported by the cited sources, but there were many other problems. I looked closer, and could not find that number in any of these sources, which is why this looks so much like original research. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The deffinition, based recent sources seems to be appearance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- For the whiteness problem I'm compiling some sources at Talk:Mexico#Sources of available on race. As for genetic studies this is much more complicated...but happens to be my academic field..... but I've been retired from it for almost two decades with the last article I've written about this being Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. We'll have to read up on Mexican studies of Autosomal DNA.... something that simply wasn't prominent when I was in the field. Moxy🍁 03:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Are you really going to open another discussion when you've left the European Emigration one (and probably now this one too) hanging when you already acknowledged clear figures just days earlier? Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have not acknowledged any clear figures... in fact I'm not sure if you understand what everyone here is saying to you at all. At no point did I acknowledge one-third were white or a percentage 0 nada never. I've explained to you multiple times that the one-third incorporates white people as well as others from the Britannica source.. Even Bolding the word others multiple times. Not sure why you're wanting to impede the work to get this right. Moxy🍁 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- This edit looks quite unambiguos and clear to me[28] (albeit a bit low) what's up with it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is the same thing we discussed multiple times, specficialyl that
European descent (“whites”) and.other imagrate groups make up approximately thirty percent of the population
-- the problem lies with you grouping together the European descent and "other immigrants groups" into your one-third number. Unless you can separate out the "other" then it is impossible to determine how much of the 1/3 is made of up White Mexicans, as opposed to other immigrants. TiggerJay (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)- The "Other immigrants" was Moxy's addition, Brittanica does not group immigrants with Whites. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually that is also what I have stated to you previously on your talk page, quoting directly from sources you provided. But okay, to quote what Moxy posted about your references
Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population.
. The problem is you're using the entire "remainder of the population" as white, when that is not what is stated in the EB article you want to quote, as well as other sources you've provided in the past. If there is another source you'd like evaluated, please provide it, but we cannotinfer
as you've previously suggested anything not explicitly stated in these statistics. TiggerJay (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)- The source does not state "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" states that "Whites compose the remainder or are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" thus is not incorrect to state that practically the totality of the remainder are Whites, surely can be 32%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of going back and forth on the specific source, why don't you please provide a specific link so that instand of second hard quotations we can unquestionably be looking at the same source. TiggerJay (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The source is encyclopedia Brittanica, its easily accessable. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to: https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Ethnic-groups wherein the full quote would be:
- The source is encyclopedia Brittanica, its easily accessable. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of going back and forth on the specific source, why don't you please provide a specific link so that instand of second hard quotations we can unquestionably be looking at the same source. TiggerJay (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- The source does not state "Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" states that "Whites compose the remainder or are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population" thus is not incorrect to state that practically the totality of the remainder are Whites, surely can be 32%. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually that is also what I have stated to you previously on your talk page, quoting directly from sources you provided. But okay, to quote what Moxy posted about your references
- The "Other immigrants" was Moxy's addition, Brittanica does not group immigrants with Whites. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is the same thing we discussed multiple times, specficialyl that
- This edit looks quite unambiguos and clear to me[28] (albeit a bit low) what's up with it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have not acknowledged any clear figures... in fact I'm not sure if you understand what everyone here is saying to you at all. At no point did I acknowledge one-third were white or a percentage 0 nada never. I've explained to you multiple times that the one-third incorporates white people as well as others from the Britannica source.. Even Bolding the word others multiple times. Not sure why you're wanting to impede the work to get this right. Moxy🍁 04:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Are you really going to open another discussion when you've left the European Emigration one (and probably now this one too) hanging when you already acknowledged clear figures just days earlier? Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
“ | Generally speaking, the mixture of indigenous and European peoples has produced the largest segment of the population today—mestizos, who account for about three-fifths of the total—via a complex blending of ethnic traditions and perceived ancestry. Mexicans of European heritage (“whites”) are a significant component of the other ethnic groups who constitute the remainder of the population. | ” |
- In that statement it is reducing the ethnicity of Mexico down to two groups -- the mestizo's and everyone else. So we have 3/5 (or 60%) and then the other 40%-ish percentage for everyone else. The problem is that you cannot narrow that down to exclusively white Mexicans. What seems to be obviously missing is the percentage of indigenous people who appear in other sources, as well as people who are of non-European backgrounds. How do you propose those people groups should be accounted for? TiggerJay (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think less than one tenth as it used to say. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You might be confusing it with the chart below that paragraph, but there it shows for 2012 62% as mestizo, 7% Amerindian, and 31% as other -- again, you cannot simply say "other = White Mexican"... To support this, let's look at the same chart for the year 2000... 64% mestizo, 17% Amerindian... and only 15% as Mexican white, with there still being other people groups like Arab descent, Mexican Black, and other which make up around 2.7% combined.
- Now it does not take any SYNTH to understand that the words "other" mean exactly that, others not defined by a group. In 2012 there is 31% other, it does not call them out as specifically simply white. In 2000 we can see some of those other groups that are likely included in that other category. You cannot take them say "most" above (which is a wholy unspecific number) and combine it with the 31% listed as "others" and call that support for your claim. That is, infact, SYNTH and BAD-CALC. TiggerJay (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't consider the 15% White figure for anything as it's clearly based on incorrect data and has been corrected with Brittanica's new entry, simply put, no matter how many groups you add to the "other" "Whites" will not go down to just 15% you are also not considering that most afro-mexicans also identify as Indigenous, so they are within either the Indigenous group or the Mestizo group. Also why wouldn't it be possible that the big majority of the "other" group were Whites when brittanica literally says so?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- The point you keep missing is because it does not explicitly state a number does not give you the liberty to make presumptions of what the number actually is. You must provide a reliable source that states what you’re wanting to add. We can agree that the number is probably somewhere between 15 and 32% but that does not mean you simply get to picks number that sounds right to you, nor can you simply use that range either because they are not from contemporaneous sources. TiggerJay (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Brittanica has corrected the 15% thing because it was ridiculously low, it shouldn't be taken in consideration, the current entry says that Whites make up the large majority of the remainder two fifths, thats very far away from just "15%", this has to be the most non-issue, obtuse discussion I've been on here, you all accepted 30%-33% or one-third before[29][30][31], references related to brittanica have said so for months in articles like Demographics of mexico from which Moxy just removed it, why to make such a problem out of it? 32% is a rather moderate estimate, and this is not even bringing up the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues on the other source I recently brought up. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Where, exactly, did they correct it? If it's "ridiculously low", why is it still in the current Britannica article? Where does it say White Mexicans make up the "large majority" of the remainder? An update is not the same as a correction, especially since the older information is still presented as being accurate.
- The entire point of me raising this discussion here was so that other editors could get involved. That means we're going to be looking closer at a lot of these sources and the claims that are attached to them. People are going to respond to you when we have something to add. That's just how discussions work. In this case, other editors are now interested in this topic and are looking at this. So far, nobody joining this discussions seems to like the current situation.
- I've tried to explain some of the problems with these 'other sources' and your response has been to ignore the substance of what I'm saying. If you want to discuss these sources, please start responding in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- That the image is still reachable does not mean that it represents the current entry, specially not when said current entry is clearly written in accordance to the newer image, it mentions that indigenous are less than one tenth, and the pie chart says that Indigenous are less than one tenth, it also clearly says that White Mexicans make up a significant amount of the other ethnic gropus in the country and then in the pie chart it says that "other" are 31%, meaning that the other segment is White or significantly White, what's so complicated of this? specially when you all acknowledged similar numbers just days before[32][33][34]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Brittanica has corrected the 15% thing because it was ridiculously low, it shouldn't be taken in consideration, the current entry says that Whites make up the large majority of the remainder two fifths, thats very far away from just "15%", this has to be the most non-issue, obtuse discussion I've been on here, you all accepted 30%-33% or one-third before[29][30][31], references related to brittanica have said so for months in articles like Demographics of mexico from which Moxy just removed it, why to make such a problem out of it? 32% is a rather moderate estimate, and this is not even bringing up the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues on the other source I recently brought up. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- The point you keep missing is because it does not explicitly state a number does not give you the liberty to make presumptions of what the number actually is. You must provide a reliable source that states what you’re wanting to add. We can agree that the number is probably somewhere between 15 and 32% but that does not mean you simply get to picks number that sounds right to you, nor can you simply use that range either because they are not from contemporaneous sources. TiggerJay (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't consider the 15% White figure for anything as it's clearly based on incorrect data and has been corrected with Brittanica's new entry, simply put, no matter how many groups you add to the "other" "Whites" will not go down to just 15% you are also not considering that most afro-mexicans also identify as Indigenous, so they are within either the Indigenous group or the Mestizo group. Also why wouldn't it be possible that the big majority of the "other" group were Whites when brittanica literally says so?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think less than one tenth as it used to say. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- In that statement it is reducing the ethnicity of Mexico down to two groups -- the mestizo's and everyone else. So we have 3/5 (or 60%) and then the other 40%-ish percentage for everyone else. The problem is that you cannot narrow that down to exclusively white Mexicans. What seems to be obviously missing is the percentage of indigenous people who appear in other sources, as well as people who are of non-European backgrounds. How do you propose those people groups should be accounted for? TiggerJay (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also moving the discussion that was started over at Talk:Mexico § Sources of available on race back to a centeralized location...
- With regards to the source you provided [35] on page 3, I will agree that this article about discrimination in Mexico stated that 64% of people consider themselves to be dark skinned or morenos. Here is the problem: (1) this document is a survey (asking how do they self identify, which is different then actual ethnicity); and more importantly (2) there is no specific claim to what percentage of the other 36% are "whites", but rather that they're simply not morenos. You are inferring something taht is not stated. However, let me cite the following source World Factbook - Mexico:
“ | Mestizo (Indigenous-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Indigenous 21%, Indigenous 7%, other 10% (mostly European) (2012 est.) note: Mexico does not collect census data on ethnicity |
” |
- From that citation alone we can see that while 62% are considered indigenous-spanish, what is likely being referred to as Morenos, we see indigenous make up 28%, and that leaves only around 10% which are mostly (but not exclusively) European, which I presume you want to claim as White Mexicans. And as such you can see the huge difference between 10% and 1/3rd. To make matters worse there are other studies [36] that have shown that on page 7, that "self identified mestizos" range from 58 to 70% depending on the study. Also on that article it does mention a very old study that asked people to categorize themselves into one of three groups -- indigenous, white or mixed, and only 9.8% claimed to be white.
- All of this mixed data compels us to have a very specific citation that references the specific study, with a specific date, and with a specific result for White Mexicans -- and then that number can be used, but with such mixed data, you cannot reasonably infer anything. TiggerJay (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- This that you just did is a very clear example of the SYNTH, this is actually what is not allowed on Wikipedia, your statement about the document "not making an specific claim to what percentage of the other 36% are "whites" is incorrect also, it very clearly states that the remainder 36% corresponds to people with European physical features, there's no way to twist this, also the definitin of more is dark skin, when you say "...but rather that they're simply not morenos" you are literally saying that they (the remainder 36%) do not have dark skin, thus the remainder 36% cannot be indigenous. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- You are not understanding WP:SYNTH which applies specifically and exclusively to information introduced into the articles, that does not apply to discussions such as this. Can you please quote from the article itself about where (and on what page) you find "36%" -- I do not see that number appear ANYWHERE in the document except for 36.5% regarding to poverty. TiggerJay (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also just so its without question, the top of the SYNTH page says
This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as [...] policy noticeboards.
(emphasis added, also noting that this is a noticeboard). Since what I am stating here does not have to do with making additions to the article, this does not apply. However, to the degree of which you want to make changes, this does apply to what you want to add (however SYNTH is permitted in discussions from everyone). TiggerJay (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)- I know that SYNTH is not explicitly forbidden on talk/discussion pages but it for that very same reason i don't see what was the purpose of bringing it up on first place, as we are discussing additions to articles.Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- When all else fails - Sanctions simply does not get it .. as mentioned above - a year ago exact same concern -replying ..."0 :32% is an ok figure, I personally think that is a bit higher than that but there are various deeply ingrained notions and stereotypes about Mexico that make higher percentages to be meet with excepticism whereas I've seen that the 32% figure is more easily accepted by people]. I was just talking with another editor on my talk page[37] the last days about how I've been meaning to lower it and make other adjustments to articles related to this topic for years now. "
- Again asserting another editor agrees dispite the last comment being "I have a problem with it wherever it is". Editor after editor simple warndown and giveup trying to explain or watch article close enough to notice that down the road stat just gets reinstated. Moxy🍁 07:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would support an escalation due to CIR and NOTHERE, as this is the same topic area where they were blocked for a month less than a year ago[38]. Not sure right now if ANI would be the best place to take it or someplace else, but if you've got the time to write it up, I'll be sure to support it tomorrow. TiggerJay (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Already took some steps on it[39]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pob3qu3 - I'm sorry but filing an unsubstantiated SPI report is not going to help your cause, and you should take time to read WP:1AM before proceeding further. Such casting of SPI WP:ASPERSIONS are likely to lead sanctions against you. TiggerJay (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Already took some steps on it[39]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would support an escalation due to CIR and NOTHERE, as this is the same topic area where they were blocked for a month less than a year ago[38]. Not sure right now if ANI would be the best place to take it or someplace else, but if you've got the time to write it up, I'll be sure to support it tomorrow. TiggerJay (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also just so its without question, the top of the SYNTH page says
- You are not understanding WP:SYNTH which applies specifically and exclusively to information introduced into the articles, that does not apply to discussions such as this. Can you please quote from the article itself about where (and on what page) you find "36%" -- I do not see that number appear ANYWHERE in the document except for 36.5% regarding to poverty. TiggerJay (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- This that you just did is a very clear example of the SYNTH, this is actually what is not allowed on Wikipedia, your statement about the document "not making an specific claim to what percentage of the other 36% are "whites" is incorrect also, it very clearly states that the remainder 36% corresponds to people with European physical features, there's no way to twist this, also the definitin of more is dark skin, when you say "...but rather that they're simply not morenos" you are literally saying that they (the remainder 36%) do not have dark skin, thus the remainder 36% cannot be indigenous. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
1st Requested closure
[edit]This subsection heading was added retroactively on Feb 11, because the 2nd request had a heading and was misleading people to believe that was the initial request for closure. TiggerJay (talk)
- Requesting that an administrator or clerk review and handle as appropriate, the discussion is going around in circles, as it has many, many, many times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is done. Sanctions are probably the next step. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think the discussion here expanded onto too many different topics and became hard to follow, it seems to have taken a better course at the talk page of White Mexicans. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, you're just filibustering while ignoring what people have been trying to explain to you for years. Don't pretend this is resolved. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think the discussion here expanded onto too many different topics and became hard to follow, it seems to have taken a better course at the talk page of White Mexicans. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is done. Sanctions are probably the next step. Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW - it should be noted that Pob3qu3 demonstrated egregious WP:ASPERSIONS by filing a dubious SPI investigation[40] in bad faith,
no way you can justify your filing of the report
[41] TiggerJay (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)- Apparently, Pob3qu3 has filed legitimate reports in the past. If that was the case, their suspicions are not completely unjustified, even if there was overreach in this particular case. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear of the 10 SPI reports they've filed, only 3 of them were confirmed, which makes 70% of the time they are filing a false report, and at some point, you've got to ask yourself if they are really filing them in good faith or not. TiggerJay (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- TiggerJay consider that on various occasions, sockpuppets that were originally not confirmed the first time I reported them on an SPI were confirmed on a subsequent one. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page TiggerJay (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- TiggerJay consider that on various occasions, sockpuppets that were originally not confirmed the first time I reported them on an SPI were confirmed on a subsequent one. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear of the 10 SPI reports they've filed, only 3 of them were confirmed, which makes 70% of the time they are filing a false report, and at some point, you've got to ask yourself if they are really filing them in good faith or not. TiggerJay (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently, Pob3qu3 has filed legitimate reports in the past. If that was the case, their suspicions are not completely unjustified, even if there was overreach in this particular case. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
2ndRequested Closure
[edit]This has been going on long enough with lots of filibustering by Pob3qu3. I request an admin take the thankless job of going through this huge WOT to move forward.
To be abundantly clear as well as we wait for that closure -- @Pob3qu3: so that there is no confusion, I am confident that nobody involved agrees with you introduction of any numerical figures about White Mexicans into any article (broadly construed). Your beliefs of the contrary are simply unfounded. Your dubious calculations and figures are central to this noticeboard, so please stop introducing this until this matter is resolved.TiggerJay (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- The root of the problem here I think is that while you or the other two editors currently do not agree that Encyclopedia Brittanica says that White Mexicans are around 31%-32%, you all at one point or another, recently at that, have acknowledged that it does indeed say that White mexicans are 31%-33% (or one-third)[42][43][44] so what's up with that? also I've presented other sources to back up the 32% or 33% figure, which have been meet with similarly erratic opposing arguments[45][46] so again, whats up with that? Your guys have to make a compromise to accept the content of sources even if you all don't like them (I have more sources like that one that we could use by the way). Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- While I am not able to intelligently contribute, much less judge, the current debate concerning statistical validity, I have found Pob3qu3 to be reasonable in the past. So, I find the accusation of "nobody involved agrees with you", especially in light of apparent past sockpuppetry, to be repulsive, especially since this thread is an attempt to have Pob3qu3 banned from participation at various articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- The past sock puppetry is real and unfortunate, but not everyone involved has been a sock puppet.
- I started this discussion because I wanted to focus on a specific example of OR. The SPI derailed an already unfocused discussion.
- As it relates to this noticeboard, my summary is that Pob3qu3 disagrees that their contributions, specifically numerical figures about White Mexicans, are original research. I'm not interested in a site ban or a broad topic ban at this point, but there has to some way to improve these articles, and judging by comments and behavior, Pob3qu3 is not interested in allowing others to make these changes. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just told you in the talk page of Mexico [47] to re-add the Brittanica source the way you wrote it yourself on the European Emigration article, how Am I not allowing others to make changes?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Particularly, the discussion touches on whether or not inclusion of Belarus in the infobox is based on original research. FOARP (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Cass Review - Council of Europe report
[edit]Over on Cass Review there is a dispute over whether a recent addition is WP:OR or not. Note that this page is subject to enforced BRD.
This edit added to the "criticism" section lengthy critical quotes on the basis of a sentence on page 43 of a September 2024 Council of Europe report:
the Italian Ministry of Health ordered an inspection of Careggi Hospital in Florence, which provides trans- specific healthcare for children and young people, potentially hindering access to puberty blockers for minors. In May 2024, the French Senate adopted a draft law that would ban hormonal treatments for young people before the age of 18 and would heavily restrict prescriptions of puberty blockers. A number of critical issues were identified by the Directorate-General for Health Planning who invited the Tuscany Region to implement, within a defined deadline, a series of corrective actions that were duly identified, particularly in relation to the administration of puberty blockers, and, consequently to report the results to the Dicastery. In 2023, NHS England announced that it would limit puberty blockers only to children and young people enrolled in a clinical trial. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has also recommended the restricted use of puberty blockers and hormones to clinical trials.
I have bolded the sentence that it is claimed makes this relevant.
The talk page discussion is here.
The reasoning for the addition is summed up in these comments: In general, the Cass Review caused a ban on puberty blockers for teens, which caused the CoE report.
and it's a response to a response to the Cass Review
I argue this is WP:OR since this is not a "criticism of the Cass Review" explicitly made by the source, and one I also argue is not actually supported by the source or its citation. The CoE document says nothing about the Cass Review, and references the 2023 interim service specification which was based on the 2020 NICE evidence reviews and proposed the year prior to the April 2024 final report of the Cass Review. This is merely criticism of restricting access to puberty blockers in general. As such I suggest that it is more relevant to general pages like Puberty blockers or Transgender healthcare.
At current count five editors argue it is not WP:OR, while two believe it is, including myself.
Tagging all editors in the discussion for visibility: @HenrikHolen @Lewisguile @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist @LokiTheLiar @Bluethricecreamman @Barnards.tar.gz
Leaving aside other concerns, I would appreciate input from editors not normally involved in this contentious subject as to whether drawing conclusions or making connections not explicitly stated by the source in this way is WP:OR. Void if removed (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Cass Review recommended a policy to the NHS. When that policy was implemented by the NHS, explicitly on the advice of the Cass Review, the Council of Europe criticized it. Therefore, the Council of Europe report is also a criticism of the Cass Review's original recommendation.
- It seems very simple to me, frankly. Loki (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I made clear, I'm looking for outside input, but I'll place a timeline I already mentioned here for clarity:
- In January 2020, NHS England set up a working group with Hilary Cass as chair, as well as commissioning systematic evidence reviews from NICE.
- In September 2020, NHS England commissioned the Cass independent service review
- In October 2020 NICE published its systematic evidence reviews
- In March 2022 The Cass Review published an interim report
- Between August and November 2023, NHS England ran a consultation on a proposed service specification, which clearly states it was prompted by the NICE evidence reviews, and that it would remain provisional until the conclusion of the Cass Review made recommendations. It is this which is referenced by the CoE report.
- In April 2024 the final report of the Cass Review was published
- In September 2024 the CoE published a report talking generally about bans on blockers in member states, that merely mentions the 2023 NHS interim service spec as an example.
- The CoE report cites a provisional spec from 2023 before the final publication of the Cass Review made its recommendations, which resulted in a final spec in 2024. Void if removed (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- again, multiple other pieces have cited the CoE report as directly challenging the bans that came about as a result of the Cass Review. [48] [49] that other sources consider mentioning the report, especially with regards to the resultant ban on treatment, indicates some kind of dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- in general think we can talk about resultant bans in the article and the response in the cass review article and just skip this debate i think Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I made clear, I'm looking for outside input, but I'll place a timeline I already mentioned here for clarity:
- You missed a bit off the end of the quote. I've added it here for clarity.
- These are the key parts:
In 2023, NHS England announced that it would limit puberty blockers only to children and young people enrolled in a clinical trial.
This was a key recommendation of the Cass Review interim report (and final report), and one of its most controversial.There are ethical implications of only offering treatment to a small group of patients, potentially violating the fundamental ethical principles governing research. [...] as for many young people the only way to receive treatment is to participate in the trial, therefore calling into question whether consent can be constituted as free and informed in these situations.
This last part is a response to the impact of recommendations such as this, including the NHS one (based on the Cass Report).
- If we want a better source to confirm the connection, there's also this Hansard debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-12-11/debates/03C1AD39-5B5E-4568-BFF3-FC6DB87575E6/Puberty-SuppressingHormones Kate Osborne, Carla Denyer and Wes Streeting discuss the Cass Review, the subsequent ban on blockers outside of trials, and the COE claims. Attribution of the relevant statements to these MPs/the Health Minister are, of course, a sensible option. Lewisguile (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm asking for outside input where possible but I have to say, if I'm asking whether a claim is WP:SYNTH based on one source, I don't think trying to argue using a different source helps.
- The point is not whether the Cass Review resulted in a ban in 2024 (it did), or whether some took issue with that (they did). The point is whether this particular source - which does not mention the Cass Review and only mentions the 2023 provisional spec for a ban - is "criticising the Cass Review".
- IMO, if it isn't explicitly stated, we shouldn't be using it, but I'd very much like to hear from someone outside the debate rather than rehashing it here. Void if removed (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- You missed the NYTimes source I had already added to this section of the article (and which had already been used elsewhere in the article). That also says the ban was a result of Cass and that several parliamentarians objected to it based on the points raised by the COE. Hansard, of course, is a direct source for that. Based on this, I think we actually have scope to expand that paragraph to cover those viewpoints. Lewisguile (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- That NYT source is all it would have taken, next time start with that.
- The report on its own was IMO insufficient, and you reinstated based on that source alone, and I would like to have had outside input on whether that's OR.
- Now you are going through a primary source - Hansard - picking quotes and conducting your own evaluation and omitting the responses.
- So I have a new question - is that OR? Void if removed (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- You missed the NYTimes source I had already added to this section of the article (and which had already been used elsewhere in the article). That also says the ban was a result of Cass and that several parliamentarians objected to it based on the points raised by the COE. Hansard, of course, is a direct source for that. Based on this, I think we actually have scope to expand that paragraph to cover those viewpoints. Lewisguile (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm phrasing this neutrally so as to get feedback about the application of WP:OR. Is it inhernetly WP:OR to write a sentence that summarizes the rest of a paragraph? For example, the featured article for BioShock includes the unsourced sentence:
- "Reviewers did highlight a few negative issues in BioShock, however."
... followed by several sourced sentences.
Obviously the sentence has to avoid errors. But assuming the one-sentence summary accurately condenses the main idea of a verifiable paragraph, is that summary sentence within Wikipedia policy? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- My impression is that a summary sentence such as that would be fine. I think the situation is analogous to our guidance on writing lead sections, since an article's lead is similarly designed to summarize the content that follows later in its article, and often does not include explicit citations as its claims are sourced throughout the article body. A summary sentence at the start of a paragraph plays the same role, so I believe that we can extend the principles behind MOS:LEAD to say that a summary sentence like the one you've mentioned is compliant with policy. (If a specific summary sentence's claim proves to be controversial, adding a citation will probably be prudent, but it shouldn't be inherently necessary.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote a comparatively unhelpful boilerplate reply here at first, but I do realize many summaries like these are ultimately distributed in their verifiability across disparate regions of summarized material. That's simply not the same in process or effect as what we generally consider WP:SYNTH. Remsense ‥ 论 20:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Part of the focus of an RfC over at Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard is if summary sentences as paragraph openers in the "Reception" section are acceptable (note - I started the RfC & Shooterwalker has participated). The reception section guidance at Manual of Style/Video games states: "Signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence. A good opening sentence summarizes the paragraph, helps the reader anticipate what to expect from the paragraph, and has references to directly support the summary. Be careful to not make generalizations not substantiated by the sources". I've typically applied the MOS:LEAD principles when implementing it; it might be helpful to have a section with acceptable & unacceptable examples outlined to make it clear how to avoid straying into OR (like the style of WP:SYNTH). (I've also been arguing for the inclusion of a specific summary sentence at the RfC but that's off topic for here.) Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's borderline, since that is your own original conclusion that is not stated by a source. I wouldn't make an issue out of it at GA, but I might be a little concerned about its use at FA. What you really want to be careful with is making a generalization about the sourcing as a whole. For a made up example, something like "critics generally disliked the hitscan system in BioShock" would need to be cited to a source that actually says it's the general opinion of critics. Citing that to three critics who disliked it would be misleading. But if we're talking about the BioShock article, I can see bigger reasons why it probably doesn't meet the FA criteria, which I'll put on the talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- There would be no concern about synthesis here if it was phrased something like Negative issues highlighted by reviewers included ... The characterization of there being more narrowly "a few" is an actual problem, IMO. Remsense ‥ 论 21:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a given that editors would need to make sure that the summary sentence reflects what the sources are saying, and correct it if need be. Just wanted to be clear that such sentences are normal in a featured article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- There would be no concern about synthesis here if it was phrased something like Negative issues highlighted by reviewers included ... The characterization of there being more narrowly "a few" is an actual problem, IMO. Remsense ‥ 论 21:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this OR?
[edit]There is a debate over whether we can use this:
...The accelerationist strategy that produced the Christchurg and Poway attacks and surfaced again in Washington, DC, on January 6th, 2021, is far from new, and its sulfurous legacy can be traced back decades. This terrorist strategy is in fact part of a long tradition of extreme, destabilizing far-right violence: indeed, each of the social media posts, dangerous plots, and violent incidents recounted so far reveals the dangerous, continued resonance of the accelerationist strategy that Pierce always admitted to advocating in The Turner Diaries. To understand why and to put those events in broader context, one has to view January 6th, 2021, as another milestone in a trajectory that commenced in the late 1970s and gathered momentum throughout the 80s...
...No other book has had so pervasive or sustained an influence over violent far-right extremism in the United States as The Turner Diaries...
...And a makeshift gallows was erected outside -an unmistakable evocation of The Turner Diaries' summons to "hold accountable" America's elected representatives...
To attribute to the authors of this book that The Turner Diaries inspired January 6. There is another source that more or less says that, so my debate is not over saying that generally, but using this specific source attributed to these authors. My argument against is no, because they do not say that. They say that the book influenced far-right extremism broadly, and that it "evoked" a specific event in the novel, but that is not the same as the book inspiring the act. It would be OR to attribute this to them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Misinformation - Name Usurpation - Washington_Technical_Institute / University_of_the_District_of_Columbia#Federal_City_College_&_Washington_Technical_Institute
[edit]Washington_Technical_Institute / University_of_the_District_of_Columbia#Federal_City_College_&_Washington_Technical_Institute
Washington Technical Institute, as can be verified at https://web.archive.org/web/20121012022722/http://www.udc.edu/welcome/history.htm was founded in 1966 and CLOSED IN 1977.
It seems a new, online-only institution, found at washingtontech.edu , a domain first registered 06-Jan-2022, has started using the name. Excel Education Systems runs 4 'institutions' that are 'regionally accredited'
Wikipedia is currently conflating the two, making the latter seem like a long-accredited institution, which it is not. Could use some admin scrutiny to see who put in the misinformation. Help, anyone? RememberOrwell (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems you already edited the article to add the dissolution date. That takes care of any possible confusion between the historical WTI and this new degree mill. Whoever added a redirect from Washington Technical Institute to that page probably only meant the historical school. I don't see any misinformation here as none of Excel Education Systems' institutions are mentioned on Wikipedia, and I think you can remove the failed verification tag. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- I did so edit-after posting here. I do still see misinformation. I see no evidence that it was The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (which would be MSA, not MACS) who accredited the Washington Technical Institute in 1971 and Federal City College in 1974. Just that someone did. Also, it is questionable that https://msa-cess.org/school-profile/?oId=0065e00000B8Tah&typ=school-profile is meant to signify accreditation of the Washington Technical Institute, as Secondary and Postsecondary education aren't checked off. And Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools indicates that MSA does not accredit colleges or universities any more. RememberOrwell (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bump. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Tidied up. Defunct, so accreditation not DUE. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bump. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I did so edit-after posting here. I do still see misinformation. I see no evidence that it was The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (which would be MSA, not MACS) who accredited the Washington Technical Institute in 1971 and Federal City College in 1974. Just that someone did. Also, it is questionable that https://msa-cess.org/school-profile/?oId=0065e00000B8Tah&typ=school-profile is meant to signify accreditation of the Washington Technical Institute, as Secondary and Postsecondary education aren't checked off. And Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools indicates that MSA does not accredit colleges or universities any more. RememberOrwell (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Taylor Lorenz and SYNTH
[edit]This was brought to WP:DR, with the suggestion being to consult a third party for wording choices/advice which is why I'm bringing it here.
The short version is that the other editor thinks the wording in the article should be that Lorenz left the Washington Post to focus on her Substack publication, based on past posts being available in an archive on said site, which I believe is in violation of WP:SYNTH. I feel we should go with what reliable secondary and primary sources state, and stick to the sources.
After several edits back and forth, a talk page discussion occured, with Delecto's reasoning being that the material should be "focus on" since her website existing counts as a reliable source -
"WP:PRIMARY states, among other things, that primary sources can be used to describe statements of fact. See below. This is not WP:OR"
and
"Go to her substack, go to the archives, you will see prior to her announcement that there are significant articles. Existence is certainly a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, feel free to take it WP:DRR."
Relevant links below:
- Post on X by Lorenz
~personal news~ I'm going independent and launching my own media outlet on Substack called User Mag.
- The Hollywood Reporter
Tech culture columnist Taylor Lorenz is striking out on her own, exiting The Washington Post to launch her own publication on the Substack platform.
Lorenz is launching User Magazine, which will “cover technology from the user side. - New York Times
Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack.
- Instagram
Thank you to the New Yorker for covering the launch of @usermagazine and my decision to return to independent media!
- New Yorker
On October 1st, she announced that she was leaving the Post to launch User Mag, an independent publication on Substack
- Washington Post
Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint. [..] Lorenz will launch User Mag on the Substack newsletter platform, which has become home to a number of notable writers in recent years
- NPR
When tech columnist Taylor Lorenz left the Washington Post last week, she did so with a splash: An interview with The Hollywood Reporter about launching her own digital magazine, called User Mag.
Awshort (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- From what I can tell reading that discussion on the talk page, some people (People A) think we should say she left the Washington Post to focus on her Substack, and other people (People B) think we should say she left the Washington Post to launch the Substack. so the argument is mostly just between focus versus launch as the preferred terminology. If it's more than that, I missed it. People A note that she already did have some history of writing on a Substack prior to the time she left the Washington Post, and can point to primary resources to validate this observation. People B argue that RSes call what happened when she left the Post a launch and that it is WP:OR to dig up the primary sources from prior to the time that she really got going with the Substack (after she left the Post). I agree with People B that it is WP:OR. If I periodically catered parties out of my home, and then one day quit my day job and opened a restaurant, a reporter covering this would want to decide whether to describe this new chapter in my life as a launch ("she launched a restaurant") or as a different focus ("She quit her job to focus on her passion for cooking"). We have to go with what the reporters decided to say about this. Someone who dredged up the fact that I used to do a bit of catering from my home should not write a letter-to-the-editor complaining that the reporters should have called this a change of focus and not a launch and point to my previous bit of catering, however much everyone agrees with the fact that I used to do that. It's WP:OR to overrule how RSes interpreted the event. Novellasyes (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to wait until the discussion at DRN has completed before engaging here. That thread is still open. Delectopierre (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- That thread is on hold indefinitely. Given that, I will paste my response here.
- The sources that Awshort claims we must use in this post, and in their statement above, all attribute their reporting to statements by Lorenz. See below (emphasis mine). Doesn't that make these WP:PRIMARY as well?
- "Lorenz, who is leaving the newspaper to launch the publication, says that it will "cover technology from the user side," in contrast to traditional coverage of social media."
- "Taylor Lorenz, the high-profile tech columnist for The Washington Post, said on Tuesday that she was leaving the publication to start her own subscription newsletter on Substack."
- "Taylor Lorenz, a Washington Post technology columnist, announced Tuesday that she is leaving the paper to launch a new publication on Substack, bringing to a close a 2½-year stint"
- I will note here, the distinction between a product release and a product launch. See eg: 1, 2, 3.
- The sources that Awshort claims we must use in this post, and in their statement above, all attribute their reporting to statements by Lorenz. See below (emphasis mine). Doesn't that make these WP:PRIMARY as well?
- Delectopierre (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Before I respond, can you say whether this particular WP:OR is just about whether to use focus or, rather, launch, to describe what occurred when Lorenz left the Washington Post and devoted herself to her substack? Novellasyes (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think that’s basically the question?
- In my eyes, it’s about whether it’s allowable to use focus based on the sources.
- Perhaps not as relevant on this board, but I am open to discussion about style vs accuracy etc. It’s just that I don’t believe that based on policy, ‘focus on’ is not allowed. Delectopierre (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Sometimes with discussions like this, more than one policy gets thrown into the mix. I think one policy that got thrown into this mix has to do with the use of primary resources (in this case, the word Lorenz herself used to describe the change) versus secondary sources. Because this is the WP:OR board, I'm going to totally ignore that discussion. It's not uncommon for an editor (this happens to me) to have certain ways of using language or to feel (as I sometimes do) that something is perfectly obvious so I wish it could be put that way in the article. What WP wants us to do instead, though, is to (perhaps even somewhat simplistically) is look and see the language that reliable secondary sources used to describe the situation, and to stick like glue to that. If different secondary sources used different language -- some of them saying "focus" and some of them saying "launch" -- then you'd have to balancing type conversation -- how many used which term, and are the ones that used this term more reliable, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here -- it looks to me like most of the reliable secondary sources used "launch". So I think we should stick with that, even if they are wrong and should have used a different word. I appreciate the good work you are doing on the article. She's a fascinating person. Novellasyes (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the in depth response.
Does the fact that those RS are all quoting her have an impact? Or is that the part that’s not for this board?- Just re-read. I get it now. But one other question that begs: Would it be OR/SYNTH to say something like 'she left the post in xxxx year to launch her substack, although she had a substack prior to that date.' Note that I'm not advocating for that, just trying to understand the part where the synth/OR occurs.
- And yes - I agree that she’s fascinating. Delectopierre (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- It would not be SYNTH to add "although she had a substack prior to the launch date" if there are reliable secondary sources that say that. Part of the reason that WP cares about the use of reliable secondary sources is to determine whether a fact, even if true, is a notable fact. It has to be notable (as judged by whether reliable secondary sources mention it) to make it into an article. When thinking about all of this, it's important to recognize that no one doubts that she had a substack prior to leaving the Post. If a WP editor plays the SYNTH card, they are not doubting this. They are questioning whether that fact is important enough to make it into the article. To decide on that, they would rely on whether reliable secondary sources talk about it when talking about the launch. If reliable secondary sources don't mention it or talk about it in connection with the launch, then the judgment would be that that's because they didn't think it was important enough to mention, when they wrote about the launch. If another editor strongly thinks that it does matter that she already had a substack, unless that editor can find reliable secondary sources that write about that prior history of substack publication as if it mattered when discussing the launch, then it is SYNTH to put it in the article in connection with the launch. The question you'd want to rely on reliable secondary sources for isn't the question of whether she had a substack she wrote on before she left the Post. The question is whether that fact is notable enough, or matters, when it comes to talking about the launch. If some reliable secondary sources talk about it that way, then you can make the case that it should be in the article. If not, not. Novellasyes (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Sometimes with discussions like this, more than one policy gets thrown into the mix. I think one policy that got thrown into this mix has to do with the use of primary resources (in this case, the word Lorenz herself used to describe the change) versus secondary sources. Because this is the WP:OR board, I'm going to totally ignore that discussion. It's not uncommon for an editor (this happens to me) to have certain ways of using language or to feel (as I sometimes do) that something is perfectly obvious so I wish it could be put that way in the article. What WP wants us to do instead, though, is to (perhaps even somewhat simplistically) is look and see the language that reliable secondary sources used to describe the situation, and to stick like glue to that. If different secondary sources used different language -- some of them saying "focus" and some of them saying "launch" -- then you'd have to balancing type conversation -- how many used which term, and are the ones that used this term more reliable, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here -- it looks to me like most of the reliable secondary sources used "launch". So I think we should stick with that, even if they are wrong and should have used a different word. I appreciate the good work you are doing on the article. She's a fascinating person. Novellasyes (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Before I respond, can you say whether this particular WP:OR is just about whether to use focus or, rather, launch, to describe what occurred when Lorenz left the Washington Post and devoted herself to her substack? Novellasyes (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- That thread is on hold indefinitely. Given that, I will paste my response here.
Involve (think tank) alleged controversy with trustee involved in tobacoo industry
[edit]@User:Chalk giant has added a great deal of content to Involve (think tank) attempting to build up a controversy over Involve's appointing Andrew Cave, who was previously employed in the tobacco industry, as a trustee. Their sources for the existence of the controversy are Linkedin posts by one person, [REDACTED - Oshwah]. All other sources do not mention a controversy in any way, creating a web of OR precariously balanced atop this one LinkedIn post and a single [REDACTED - Oshwah]. Chalk giant has repeatedly stated that LinkedIn sources are acceptable "if the identity of the posters are confirmed". You can see my attempts to discuss this issue on the talk page. (Note that they have also inserted functionally identical content on several other tangentially related pages, which I have removed as WP:HATSTANDing and which thus far have not been reinstated.)
A few example of the problematic content taken from the first three paragraphs; bear in mind the entire 15 paragraphs or so are like this:
- "Involve's appointment of a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry has been disputed by ethics experts and deliberative democracy activists.", unsourced; nearest sources are a Tobacco Tactics page on Cave and his LinkedIn page, neither of which show any dispute by anyone at all. The only source with any evidence of such a dispute I can find on the entire page is [REDACTED - Oshwah] and the [REDACTED - Oshwah].
- "Some of Involve's funders are also strictly opposed to investments in the tobacco industry, meaning their continued funding of Involve is called into question", sourced to Involve's "Who funds us page", which is a bare list of funders and does not mention tobacco in any way. The following sentence mention one specific funder, [REDACTED - Oshwah], and states that they avoid "material investments in... tobacco", the source for which is that [REDACTED - Oshwah]'s website which again does not mention Involve in any way.
- "It is unknown whether these key stakeholders were consulted about Involve’s appointment of a trustee from the tobacco industry, yet difficult to imagine they would approve it, given the fundamental conflict with their principles.", completely unsourced
In addition to the OR issues, this there are clear NPOV/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems with the text, e.g. "it is in the public interest to document possible tobacco industry influence in NGOs like Involve", "This gives grounds for concern relating to his appointment", "These words are an attempt at whitewashing the image of PMI", "All of the above information on Cave and PMI is discoverable with simple search queries. This makes the Involve board’s decision to appoint this former tobacco industry executive hard to understand, given the multiple conflicts of interest with the values of its stakeholders and funders." etc etc etc.
I generally dislike dragging disagreements to noticeboards but Chalk giant has stopped responding on the talk page. I would appreciate if editors not currently involved in this could take a look and weigh in. Rusalkii (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Right. This isn't really close to say that this violates WP:OR. It also has a number of other problems, as you observe, which include WP:COAT, Linked-In not a good source, and also WP:BLP, because although the article isn't about a person, the content they added is. Novellasyes (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would appreciate explicit confirmation from this noticeboard this is fine to remove in it's entirety and advice on what to do if Chalk giant continues to readd it, because I'm uninterested in slow motion edit warring here. It looks like they've continued editing instead of responding here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly if there's unsourced info it can be removed and the onus is on the editor to re-add the info with a cited ref. Additionally, agreed that using Linkedin to cite a controversy is not the best choice of ref, took a quick look to see if other kinds of sources are available for the issue but was unable to find any WP:RS, so it may not be WP:DUE for the article. Also glancing though the article I see a lot of WP:SYNTH and unreferenced WP:POV statements such as this and this: "It is entirely plausible, therefore, that the tobacco industry would turn its attention to trying to influence and infiltrate public participation organisations, in addition to its established political lobbying channels, once it became apparent that these were to be increasingly used to help governments to formulate health policy. This seems to be what has indeed happened in the UK, with the Involve Foundation and the Sortition Foundation now both with the same former tobacco industry top executive on their boards". Their most recent addition of ref also fails verification. I think the possible COI issue is probably the most concerning as you noted that the same person adding the controversy info to the page is using their own Linkedin page as a ref, can take a closer look later. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- The first sentence,
"Involve's appointment of a trustee with a history of employment in the tobacco industry has been disputed by ethics experts and deliberative democracy activists. Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022, became a trustee of Involve in April 2023."
is reference by a link saying he was employed at Philip Morris and a Linkedin post (probably not reliable and definitely not usable for BLP details WP:BLPSPS). So the vet first sentence was both WP:V and WP:BLP issues. I've posted a notification to WP:BLPN as that board gets a lot more views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)- "Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022," is accurate. MAJOR investigative reporting by REUTERS imply he's a nasty piece of work. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/pmi-who-fctc/. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any dispute that he was employed by PMI or that sources have reported that PMI is terrible, just that dragging this into Involve's page is both synth and undue as no reliable sources discuss any kind of controversy as to his appointment as a trustee at Involve. Rusalkii (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- So there's no dispute that MAJOR investigative reporting by REUTERS imply he's a nasty piece of work? That he lied about PMC targeting the FCTC -WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control? That "the tobacco giant has specifically been found to have manipulated tobacco legislation in [several] countries" while Cave would have had a leading role in "what may be one of the broadest corporate lobbying efforts in existence," per news reports?
- Already-provided sources for the existence of the controversy include [REDACTED - Oshwah], Sutcliffe and Shaheen, so why did you state otherwise? Also, "employed in the tobacco industry" is an odd way to describe a former top executive who may well still have PMC on his entirely secret client list and still hold PMC securities. Still, the content does have massive UNDUE issues. It strikes me as good investigative reporting by @Chalk giant, but until it actually appears in a news source, it is indeed problematic. A shame, but most of it probably needs to go. Even though it is verifiable, it's not WP:verifiable. Someone should publish it! RememberOrwell (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I continue not to dispute that Reuters, in a major feature piece, reports that he did a bunch of extremely shady things, and I'm confused why you're acting like I am. I'm not trying to defend Cave here, if this was an article about Cave citing Reuters I'd have no objections. "Employed in the tobacco industry" was not meant to be a precise description of his career.
- Sutcliffe's statment is sourced to a comment on Foulke's Linkedin post by [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I can't find the statement she linked in her link in that comment. Shaheen is said to have commented on this but I can't find any sourcing in the page backing this up. So, in fact, the only sourcing backing this up in the article are Foulke's Linkedin posts, which is what I said. If you can find better sourcing to back some of this up and reinsert it (in somewhat more moderate amounts and more encyclopedic tone) that seems completely unobjectionable. Rusalkii (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Sutcliffe's statment is sourced to a comment on Foulke's Linkedin post by [REDACTED - Oshwah] " I see: [REDACTED - Oshwah] [REDACTED - Oshwah] is by [REDACTED - Oshwah]]. Still presents pretty much the same sourcing issue though.
- It is shocking that Involve has resorted to baseless legal threats. I know UK defamation law is weird, but even so, I can't see how it is 'defamatory to Involve' for her to claim to have “secured a commitment from Dr. Shaheen that, should she be elected, neither the Sortition Foundation nor the Involve Foundation would be tasked with organising the CCA due to ethical reservations concerning their directors/trustees.”
- I wonder if @Chalk giant's write-up would meet WikiNews' editorial standards. It all seems verifiable w/ reliable sources in the journalistic sense of those words.
- The Philip Morris Files (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/pmi/) - Wow. A lot of dead links, TGFIA. https://web.archive.org/web/20170920065746/https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/projectid:%2033738-the-philip-morris-files ... RememberOrwell (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm entirely unsurprised by the AP reporting, but that in no way justifies using LinkedIn as a source for BLP details. Doing so is directly against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any dispute that he was employed by PMI or that sources have reported that PMI is terrible, just that dragging this into Involve's page is both synth and undue as no reliable sources discuss any kind of controversy as to his appointment as a trustee at Involve. Rusalkii (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Andrew Cave, who was Head of Communications at Philip Morris International (PMI) from 2012 to 2022," is accurate. MAJOR investigative reporting by REUTERS imply he's a nasty piece of work. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/pmi-who-fctc/. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- The first sentence,
- There's a lot to unpack here, but briefly if there's unsourced info it can be removed and the onus is on the editor to re-add the info with a cited ref. Additionally, agreed that using Linkedin to cite a controversy is not the best choice of ref, took a quick look to see if other kinds of sources are available for the issue but was unable to find any WP:RS, so it may not be WP:DUE for the article. Also glancing though the article I see a lot of WP:SYNTH and unreferenced WP:POV statements such as this and this: "It is entirely plausible, therefore, that the tobacco industry would turn its attention to trying to influence and infiltrate public participation organisations, in addition to its established political lobbying channels, once it became apparent that these were to be increasingly used to help governments to formulate health policy. This seems to be what has indeed happened in the UK, with the Involve Foundation and the Sortition Foundation now both with the same former tobacco industry top executive on their boards". Their most recent addition of ref also fails verification. I think the possible COI issue is probably the most concerning as you noted that the same person adding the controversy info to the page is using their own Linkedin page as a ref, can take a closer look later. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would appreciate explicit confirmation from this noticeboard this is fine to remove in it's entirety and advice on what to do if Chalk giant continues to readd it, because I'm uninterested in slow motion edit warring here. It looks like they've continued editing instead of responding here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Saw the notice at BLPN. I think WP:RSPLINKEDIN is pretty clear: Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. If better sources can not be found, anything sourced to LinkedIn should be left out. And out of 4527 words (readable prose size) for the entire article, approximately 2328 words are dedicated to the "Big Tobacco trustee dispute" section, which is a ridiculous amount of detail, making it wildly undue. Furthermore, the page length for the entire article is 50,370 bytes, and in this one edit seen here, Chalk giant added back 43,205 bytes of undue material, when they knew the content had been disputed. Quite frankly, all those sub-sections under "Governance" need a good dose of WP:DYNAMITE, and need to be re-written entirely, and summarized succinctly, if high-quality reliable sources can be found to verify the content. WP:ONUS is pretty clear as well: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Have to agree that governance section probably needs to be TNTed. I mean some of the stuff it says e.g. those parts also mentioned by Rusalkii are a major WTF? Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- yah, should be restored to the last stable version before the governance section was added. Chalk giant also seems to be adding similar info across different, related articles [50] [51] [52] by again citing Linkedin for BLP info. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I restored the last stable version per this discussion. And yes, those three diffs are outrageous, where on earth does this originate from - Normally, when people want to rehabilitate their reputation.... That sounds like straight up editorializing from a WP editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, some of the info also sounds like WP:SOAP based on other similarly written unsourced pov info, some noted above by Rusalkii. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I restored the last stable version per this discussion. And yes, those three diffs are outrageous, where on earth does this originate from - Normally, when people want to rehabilitate their reputation.... That sounds like straight up editorializing from a WP editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that @RememberOrwell removed some of my initial comment above as a WP:OUTING violation. I don't think this was, in fact, an outing violation, but if it was it should be revdeled (and if not restored). Rusalkii (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Some additional information needed suppression due to WP:OUTING and other violations. Please review Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing and do your best to follow them. I know and completely understand that the whole "WP:COI/WP:NOR/WP:PAID vs WP:OUTING" kerfuffle can be tricky, messy, gray, and even frustrating. ArbCom made a ruling on a somewhat recent case detailing where this kind of information should go (I think it's WP:VRT, but don't quote me on that). Regardless, please use those avenues to properly report this information where, what would be considered WP:OUTING here, to the correct avenues so the information can be evaluated properly. Since this whole "WP:COI/WP:NOR/WP:PAID vs WP:OUTING" subject is still... somewhat controversial on both sides, I'm not going to call anyone out or put my foot up anyone's ass over it. Let's just remember how to properly handle sensitive information like that and call it good. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Does the outing policy forbid mentioning the name of the author of the main source used in an article, without connecting to any wikipedia account, if it had earlier been connected to an account but the connection has now been removed? Rusalkii (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your initial comment above was a WP:OUTING violation AND "attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". And it was quite disruptive/time consuming to deal with. There was no WP:PAID issue complicating/creating a grey area around the clear policy barring WP:HARASSMENT, so you're lucky. The WP:OUTING policy states: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment. I suggest steering well clear of the thin ice. Something like, "Sorry to anyone I outed, misidentified or who had to deal with my mess. Thank you." would be nice to hear. Would go a long way. And I appreciate that you just stumbled upon and just saw you said you'd never heard of Involve. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)