Wikiafripedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiafripedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Header

SYNTH, NPOV[edit source | edit]

Steele dossier - I'm requesting input regarding what appears to me to be a classic case of noncompliance with WAP:NOR (SYNTH), and WAP:NPOV. I am also of the mind that if one issue is resolved, the other with possibly self-correct. I'm going to focus on a single paragraph from a rather lengthy and detailed lead in a topic area I just know all editors and admins love to edit. You can thank me later. 😎

Contrary to a conspiracy theory[1][2] pushed by Trump,[3] Fox News,[4] and many of Trump's congressional supporters, the dossier was not the trigger for the opening of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election campaign.[5][6] It did play a central role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page[7] in terms of establishing FISA's low bar[8] for probable cause.[9]

I realize we can state several facts in a single sentence citing different sources as long as we don't reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; however, the various sources that were cited in that paragraph were used to not only form an absolute conclusion but to justify stating it in WikiVoice, which is not only SYNTH, it is noncompliant with NPOV.

The CBS News report that was cited for "probable cause" in the last sentence of the above paragraph also states: "However, the Horowitz report is not the final word on the origins of the investigation. U.S. Attorney John Durham is leading a separate review of the FBI's investigation, and after Horowitz released his findings, Durham also questioned the conclusions." There is no mention of this important fact. It is also a known fact that the IG is limited in both scope and reach outside the department which the IG report and Horowitz himself admitted - again, no mention. Durham's probe is a criminal investigation, and it includes information from outside the Justice Department, to include testimony from witnesses outside the US. There is also the AP report published by PBS News Hour that corroborates the information, and like the CBS report, is neutral and presents all relevant sides, which is what WAP articles are supposed to do. Template:Sources-talk

  1. Is it SYNTH?
  2. Is it compliant with NPOV?

Discussion[edit source | edit]

Interpreting a source[edit source | edit]

For several weeks now, members of WikiProject Motorsport have been debating the meaning of the Sporting Regulations for the World Rally Championship. These are the rules produced by the governing body of motorsport, the FIA. The passage in question is Article 26, which reads as follows:

P1 drivers may request a specific number provided that the application is endorsed by the FIA and the Promoter. Number 1 may only be chosen by the World Champion driver of the previous season. Requested numbers may not be greater than 99.
Competition numbers shall be allocated rally by rally, according to the provisional classification of the Championships concerned.

It is this idea of "seasonally allocated competition numbers" that is proving problematic. One of the editors involved, Tvx1, put forward the following interpretation of Article 26:

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple seasons, we can't really be certain of that.

His argument is that because the section is referred to as "seasonally allocated" numbers, that means a driver chooses a number for one year at which point they need to reapply for that number. I believe this to be original research on his part for the following reasons:

  • The numbers are only referred to as "seasonally allocated" in the title of Article 26. The body of Article 26 refers to "permanent numbers", and the phrase "seasonally allocated numbers" is never used again.
  • I have searched several times for sources that support Tvx1's claim. When I use a search term for wrc "seasonal numbers", the only hits I get related to the subject are the WT:MOTOR discussion where Tvx1 made his claim.
  • There are a variety of sources out there detailing the number system—the rule was first introduced in 2019—which use the term "permanent numbers". These include the FIA website,, Autosport and Speedcafe. These are four of the most reliable publications, which are routinely used across the scope of WAP:MOTOR.

Furthermore, the FIA website details the specific changes to the Sporting Regulations year on year. This passage outlines the nature of Article 26:

In order to give consistent identity to drivers and assist with promotion, Priority 1 drivers will be free to choose their permanent car number from 2019, except number 1, which will always be reserved for the reigning World Rally Champion.

This specifically refers to "permanent numbers" rather than "seasonal numbers". I have requested that both Tvx1 and Pelmeen10—who supported his interpretation—share any sources that they have to substatiate the "seasonal numbers" argument. They have either refused, ignored the request, or claimed that the burden rests with those who disagree with them.

In the past week, a new source has become available: the entry list for the first round of 2020. It shows that two drivers (Sébastien Loeb and Takamoto Katsuta) are competing with different numbers to the ones they used in 2019. This source was not available at the time Tvx1 made his claim. Tvx1 is claiming that this proves him right; however, the entry list only shows that the numbers have changed. It does not explain how the number changes came about. I believe this to be synthesis.

There are three things that I would like to see happen in this discussion:

  1. I would like Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 to share whatever sources they have to substantiate Tvx1's original claim.
  2. I would like members of this noticeboard to evaluate all of the sources presented and determine whether or not Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 have engaged in original research.
  3. I would like members of this noticeboard to offer some idea of how to handle the paradox created by the Monte Carlo entry list for future reference.

Finally, I know that this seems like a very minor thing to come to a noticeboard for. However, the discussion is taking place at WikiProject Motorsport (rather than WikiProject World Rally) and so has the potential to affect every single article within the scope of WAP:MOTOR. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am an on-off contributor to the discussion in question.
I have to agree with Mclarenfan17 that when Tvx1 came forward with the claim originally it constituted original research. I also think that Tvx1's claim that drivers must reapply for numbers every year is still original research. However I have to agree with Tvx1 that the Monaco entry list shows that driver numbers can change, this is supported by this source: [1]. How or why these number changes came about is irrelevant and this source shows that numbers can change (I.e. they are not permanent) - this means that it would be original research to assume the numbers would stay the same (as explained to Mclarenfan17 in the WT:MOTOR discussion).
To conclude up until the release of the Monaco entry list I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light. And articles should reflect the most recent sources when various sources contradict each other (ie. The articles should list numbers as TBA or TBC until an entry list comes out for that season).
SSSB (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)SSSB, can you actually point to a diff of a comment where I (or Pelmeen10 specifically stated that I/they think that crews have to physically reapply for the their numbers at the end of each season? And how does it even matter? As you point out yourself, how or why the number changes come about is irrelevant. The only point I and Pelmeen10 ever made was that there was no evidence whatsoever that these numbers were fixed for their entire careers, which is what I have reiterated time and time again during that WT:MOTOR discussion. Even before the Monte Carlo entry list was published you stated repeatedly that there was insufficient evidence for Mclarenfan17's claims and that listing the numbers as TBA was a sensible way forward. What's wrong with being prudent? In the end, because of Mclarenfan17's antics we ended up listing incorrect numbers for a couple of crews on that article for weeks. I would like to know why we are being accused of engaging in OR, when actually Mclarenfan17 actually did so even more clearly by claiming and insisting that crews' numbers are fixed for their careers without ever providing any concrete evidence for that claim, forcing us to actually have incorrect information in an article for weeks. Even now with clear evidence that these numbers aren't fixed for entire careers and without any support in the WAP:MOTOR discussion, within the last 24 hours [2][3], they kept reinstating crew numbers that have not been announced for 2020 yet in the 2020 article on the basis that that "they stay the same as last season".Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Tvx1 and Pelmeen did engage in original research but they're not anymore as more sources have come to light.
That does not justify what they did in the first place. They had no way of knowing that source would become available when they made that claim and their ongoing refusal to provide sources amounted to disruptive editing. It's especially galling considering that they insisted others produce sourcses.
Furthermore, the Monte Carlo entry list does not actually prove the original claim to be correct because the source does not offer any context. Tvx1 specifically claimed that every driver would have to go through the process of reapplying for a number, but the entry list only demonstrates that some numbers have changed. Two potential scenarios emerge:
  1. Every driver had to reapply for their number. Where most kept the same number, some changed.
  2. Every driver had a permanent number, but some decided to change and applied separately.
The Monte Carlo entry list does not establish either scenario as having happened, so Tvx1 and Pelmeen10 cannot claim to be right. They're quick to point out the two drivers that changed, but they're ignoring the six that did not. They should still show the sources that they used to justify the original claim that they made in November, or at least admit that they never had a source, because this sort of behaviour should not be overlooked. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim? And exactly what justifies what you did? What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers??Tvx1 18:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a diff were I made that specific claim?
I already have.
What evidence did you ever provide that supported your claim that these numbers were supposedly fixed for their entire careers?
I have already posted this, too—the four sources from the FIA,, Autosport and Speedcafe that all refer to "permanent numbers". I have posted those sources both here and in the WT:MOTOR discussion. They are also used in the 2019 World Rally Championship article to explain the regulation changes. I don't know how you keep missing these. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
And where exactly did my comment in that diff state "they have to re-apply at the end of each season". Sorry but these words are just not there. As I have explained multiple times, my point was that there was insufficient evidence that these numbers were fixed for there entire careers. And as multiple editors have pointed out to you time and time again during the WT:MOTOR discussion, your sources do NOT support your theory. None of them state that they are career numbers of numbers fixed for the entire careers. In fact the Autosport source literally uses the word season with regards to the numbers (Ogier's Citroen team-mate Esapekka Lappi will carry #4 in his first season with the French manufacturer...; A number was not assigned to Sebastien Loeb, who is currently competing on the Dakar Rally, at the unveiling, but the nine-time world champion's Hyundai will carry #19 on its six outings this season.). Yet for some reason you utterly refuse to accept that even though no one agrees with you.Tvx1 23:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The part where you said:
It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.
So what happens at the end of that season if the number is only reserved for a year?
It's obvious what happened here. You never had the sources to support your claim, obviously engaged in original research, and now that you think you have a source that justifies it, you're trying to talk your way out of it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that's what you think I did. As explained multiple times. The only claim I actually made is that we had insufficient evidence to support the content. If you read incorrect things between the lines that's your problem, not mine. I can not be held accountable for your misinterpretations. If anyone engaged in original research and synthesis it was you. You included content in an article bases on a personal assumption causing us to include incorrect information for weeks.Tvx1 15:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The only claim I actually made is that we had insufficient evidence to support the content.
So you didn't say this, then?
They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season.
It's in your edit history. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I said that. And the only thing that meant is that there was insufficient evidence that the numbers would be fixed for their entire careers. Again, it's not my fault you misinterpreted things.Tvx1 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I provided you with four sources—including the FIA and the sport's website—that all specifically referred to "permanent numbers". They also drew a direct comparison to the system used in Formula 1 where drivers keep the same number year on year. And yet somehow, this is all insufficient for you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And everyone else in the discussion has explained to you repeatedly why these sources were insufficient. That fact that you simply refuse to accept that is the core of the problem and is why you we're still here having this discussion. You've made your grievances clearly now and it's clear that this pattern of replies between is not going to yield anything. So I strongly suggest we stop this and see if any of the moderators suggests a course of action.Tvx1 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, while you insisted us to provide sources that car numbers can change, you yourself failed to provide evidence that they stay the same. The sources you provided do not explain what is a "permanent number", and now with the number changes we know it was premature to write those wrong numbers in the first place. Content of Wikiafripedia should not be poorly sourced. You did the same thing with writing the "WRC-2 Pro" championship will run in 2020. Remember that you wrote in May that the championship will run, while is reality it does not. The false info stayed in the article for 6 months, when on 5th of October I finally removed it. Then you demanded sources and consensus from me. Talk:2020_World_Rally_Championship/Archive_1#WRC-2_Pro_in_2020 [4] [5]. Now I ask do you understand what All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source means? Do you plan to write poorly sourced content in the future? Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not explain what is a "permanent number", and now with the number changes we know it was premature to write those wrong numbers in the first place.
The definition of permanent is "lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely". Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a "permanent number" is "a number that is lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely".
Now I ask do you understand what All content must be verifiable
Do you? In the discussion that you cite, the only source you provided was an image of a Twitter feed. It was not clear who the author was, and totally failed WAP:RELIABLE and WAP:VERIFIABLE.
Do you plan to write poorly sourced content in the future?
I gave you four reliable, verifiable sources, which you ignored. And now you're trying to claim that "because those sources do not explicitly define what that term meant, I was under no obligation to provide any sources of my own".
You're trying to argue that because the word "permanent" was never defined in the sources, then we could not be sure that the word "permanent" actually meant "permanent" all to avoid the fact that you carried out original resesrch. Do I need a source that says the sky is blue as well? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
If you ever wanted a better example of someone trying to talk "their way out of it", this one from you here is the best yet.Tvx1 15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that you didn't read the discussion Pelmeen10 linked to. This is the source that he claims to be reliable and verifiable. While events ultimately played out in such a way that the claims were proven true, that does not make the source acceptable. Pelmeen10 claims "false info stayed in the article for 6 months", but he never produced a source to support it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Why would anyone have to provide a source not to include content? You were the one would included content in an article without any source correctly supporting it, which was explained to you by multiple users and yet still continued your ways and still continue to refuse to admit you were wrong despite no-one agreeing with you.Tvx1 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Why would anyone have to provide a source not to include content?
If content in an article is supported by a reliable source, but things change such that it is no longer applicable, then a source should be provided to show why its removal is necessary. The source that Pelmeen10 provided in this instance failed both WAP:RS and WAP:VER. It was a screencap of a Twitter post, but with nothing to identify the author or what they were basing the claim on. Ultimately the claims were proven to be correct, but that doesn't make his source valid.
You were the one would included content in an article without any source correctly supporting it
You were saying? You didn't provide any source to support this. In fact, the actual source needed to verify this—the entry list—was not made available for another three days. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And as explained to you endlessly by anyone involved in the discussion, the sources supporting the content were insuficient to satisfy WAP:VERIFY and thus the content should have been removed straight away.Tvx1 17:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation of scientific papers for a neuroscience topic[edit source | edit]

My edits to a page concerning the scientific validity of a published book were rejected by Matt18224 based on the no original research and inappropriate synthesis standard. Here is the link to the original text of my edit: As I have published quite a bit in scientific journals,accuracy of sourcing is very familiar to me. Nothing that I presented was original research in my edit, though all of it was original research on the part of the authors cited. The assertions I make about their work are assertions they present themselves in their published paper. It is unbelievable to me that Matt18224 would have read the links I provided in the space of two hours and determined that my description of the work went beyond what was published therein. The meaning of synthesis I am less clear on, as any bringing together of scientific facts to construct a useful scientific page on Wiki involves the act of bringing the facts together to educate.

What is most alarming is that the current posting relevant to the science of the book in question (Tell Your Children) is completely one sided and relies on journalists who have quoted one set of scientists, some of whom have a vested financial interest in the topic at hand (are members of cannabis company advisory boards).

I think discussion of Tell Your Children should evolve into a pro-con format, wherein all posts are allowed that provide good sourcing and are not defamatory, etc. If nothing were to be edited out (except by the poster) then the public would benefit from being exposed to the disparate views.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MomwithaPhD (talkcontribs) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetic maps using modern political boundaries[edit source | edit]

Several maps have been raised for deletion discussion on Commons which appear to be entirely original research. These are used in multiple articles and presented as if they are published maps from peer-reviewed research. At best, they appear to have been generated from open forum discussions and 'creatively' interpreting data sets which would never have provided sufficient detail to draw fine zoning lines. Raising here for the general principle, as such user creations might end up being hosted on Commons, but using them in any Wikiafripedia article seems to break WAP:OR and they probably should be systematically removed.

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) distribution

The Haplogroup R1b map, shows detailed map zoning which does not seem to be based on any declared dataset (correction, 11 sources were vaguely quoted, along with "etc"). This map is currently illustrating:

  1. Bashkirs
  2. Romanians
  3. Haplogroup R1b
  4. Genetic studies on Serbs
  5. Genetic studies on Bulgarians

-- (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

R1b map

This R1b map is the single illustration for Haplogroup R-L151, and there is no indication of why the zones are marked exactly in the way they are. This is apparently the views of the map uploader, not because any source defines data this way. -- (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Haplogrupo N

This is the infobox illustration for Haplogroup N-M231. No sources have been produced to show how it was created. -- (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Interpretation of a source at Lebor Gabála Érenn[edit source | edit]

This is a case where the source is reliable but I think is being interpreted in an original way. The edit[6] is:

Recent research by John Koch describes Ireland as a "fully paid member of the Atlantic Late Bronze age with south-west Iberia". John Kochs recent research also calls into question the dismissal, "as an invention", that the Gaels (Milesians) originated in the Iberian Peninsula. [10]

The source states: On the other hand, both Ireland and south-west Iberia had been ‘fully paid-up members’ of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. It has long been recognised that the V-notched shields, leaf-shaped swords and ogival-headed spears of the Iberian warrior stelae have close counterparts among actual artefacts of the Irish late Bronze Age. Therefore, if we can reorientate our thinking away from Hallstatt and La Tène to look instead at Ireland’s overseas affinities during its spectacularly wealthy late Bronze Age, the fact that Tartessos should now be giving up some of its mysteries in a language comparable to Irish may not be so surprising. It will not be the first or the last ironic twist of intellectual history for a Celtic Tartessos to appear on the horizon after the Spanish provenance of the Gaels (as per the Book of Invasions) has lost its last shred of credibility."

I can't see what "fully paid member..." adds to the article(I'm guessing the editor sees this as an argument for something) or where Koch's research (or his last sentence) "calls into question the dismissal, "as an invention", that the Gaels (Milesians) originated in the Iberian Peninsula.". Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ref talk

I have pointed this out before. the page is unable to be edited with any new sources unless revolves around apaper by Carey in 1994. there is currenlty 17 citations of that work on the page with more hidden in collections of Celtic works.. using the small stable of acceptable sources one being Koch , who earlier in his career was dismissive of the Link between Ireland and Spain, has now changed his mind, Doug has issues with this update in Kochs research.. dna and archaeology has confirmed the link between Ireland, Iberia and Spain based on language, dna in cairns or burial sites.

what Koch says here cant be clearer..

however i had little time to include other sources today as Doug took issue and reverted back before i had time to include.

the page has a very biased POV based on the insistence of using careys old work.. feel free to read the "talk" to get a better undertsanding of the issues. Gemmathegael (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of why I came here. Geemathegael says "Koch , who earlier in his career was dismissive of the Link between Ireland and Spain, has now changed his mind, Doug has issues with this update in Kochs research.. dna and archaeology has confirmed the link between Ireland, Iberia and Spain based on language, dna in cairns or burial sites." Such a link doesn't belong in Lebor/The Book of Invasions unless discussed, and it is: " No one has taken the possibility of Celtic coming from Hispania to the other Celtic countries seriously since we stopped taking Lebar Gabala £renn (the 11th-century Irish ‘Book of Invasions’) seriously, but it is now at least worth pausing to review what it is that we think we know that makes that impossible. (Koch 2010, 294f)" but I don't think that comment about the Book of Invasions is what User:Gemmathegael wants to add. If she does, she should say so. Note that although it's true I reverted a copyright violation, GemmatheGael replaced it with the text I brought here. She's been blocked for edit-warring recently on the same page. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC) @Gemmathegael:. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Koch is the source that was on the page when i first started editing, Doug Weller does not like new sources, even newer work from the same person. Most researchers change their minds faced with new evidence, in this case language, metalwork and DNA . I think Doug Weller wants to keep a POV on the document and is unwilling to let me edit, hence the edit war. which is quite frankly off for a " mod" who has been using wiki for so long. I am a new user. The problem even today is he reverted again today without waiting until i added more citations or feedback. Conditions i was placed under... see talk page by Doug Weller was " all my sources must fit a certain criteria he decided" , even when I edit, as today, with sources that fit this narrow criteria he has issues.. as of today I have 3 messages from him on my talk page with more requirements, a reversion, chasing up some issue he has with a source here, accusations of something else I'm not quite sure of with " by text he brought here" its a she btw..

Maybe if i had time to include sources instead of responding on the talk page against what i find was extremly discriminatory remarks,including on Christian writers and had to remind him of the code of ethics wiki should uphold.

btw not quite sure what he means by "text he brought here".. can he elaborate on that one.. the time stamp in the editing of the page and the history notes show i edited prior to him posting here.. me @ 16:01. I am at a loss what he means, maybe someone can explain what it is

to sum it up... i added the link to clarify Kochs point and to correct what was seen to be a copyright issue.its hard to keep up. I feel he reverted as he didnt like the new source as it contradicts his POV. I am new to wiki and it will take me a few days to get up to speed with things, in the meantime i would prefer not to be messaged multiple times a day over small edits, or some other issue that can be dealt with in a civil manner. I would prefer to have a little time to edit before everything is reverted on minor issues.

to clarify the two sources i provided clarify the new position of Koch..Gemmathegael (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

btw as a new user i am still trying to work out how to edit references so as not to infringe copyright and maybe then, and given the space I can add more of what Koch wrote... this hounding in relentless Gemmathegael (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gemmaethegael: it's not an issue of copyright, it's an issue of what is appropriate in an article and of learning about what is original research. And about good faith - warning editors that they are discriminating against you on religious or ethnic grounds and what could be seen as chilling comments about the code of ethics (aimed evidently not just at me) isn't helping you either. I always prefer newer sources particularly when it comes to archaeology and genetics. But newer sources are not automatically better. I don't see any evidence that Koch has changed his mind about the Lebor, nor that DNA or metalwork are relevant. What I think I see is a misunderstanding - we can't use DNA or archaeology to prove (or disprove, but I think you are trying to prove something) about the Lebor without explicit statements that certain findings show certain things about the Lebor. And I'm not hounding. Nor am I the only editor to be concerned about your edits. You were reverted by User:Cuchullain and User:Nicknack009, were blocked for editwarring and stating you were going to continue, and the article had to be protected from IP editing. Nicknack009 also brought up some of the concerns I have at Talk:Lebor Gabála Érenn#Discussion of recent edit war.
I see Nicknack009 doesn't see any benefit in trying to work on the article, see User talk:Doug Weller#Lebor Gabála Érenn. I'm tempted to take his comment that I've no responsibility to fix it to heart, as this has wasted far too much of my tome. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal (American game show)[edit source | edit]

User AldezD has been adding seemingly WAP:OR/WAP:SYNTHESIS material onto Deal or No Deal (American game show), showing no signs of stopping after multiple warnings. I've tried to give warnings about the original research, instead getting a, "Knock it off and don't template me." on my talk page.

In regards to the problem itself, as I've just pointed out in a reply on my talk page, the tweet in question states nothing about the show's cancellation. All the tweet is saying is that the account is not active, and to follow @CNBCPrimeTV, which as I also stated, says, "Home of #BackintheGame, #CashPad, @dealnodealcnbc, @LenosGarage, @TheProfitCNBC, @AmericanGreedTV & more!" in the bio. There is nothing said about the show's cancellation and no WAP:RS (apart from the tweet) about the show's cancellation, leading this to be complete original research.

However, the user continues to ignore any/all warnings, reverting back to the WAP:OR every time. What should be done here? A tweet about the account no longer being active does not equate to the show being cancelled, especially with no other source for it. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tying a message from the show's twitter account that says the account is no longer active, to the claim that the show is cancelled, is definitely OR, ignoring any other piece of evidence given. We'd actually need a source from an RS that uses the word "cancelled". Given how NBC has handled that show in the past, with some hiatuses, it is definitely not appropriate to consider the twitter message proof of cancellation. --Masem (t) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like they taped episodes in 2020. My apologies.
@AldezD: Uh, those are not new episodes taped. That is the listing guide, showing the airings on TV. Those three episodes listed for January 2020 are all episodes that premiered last year. (All three of those episodes actually premiered in January 2020.) AFAIK, no new episodes have taped especially considering the audience ticket page is currently hidden, still able to access from the direct link.
However, the fact remains that one tweet saying an account is no longer active is not a source for the show's cancellation when it doesn't explicitly state anything regarding that. Magitroopa (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
"Uh" you can cut out the attitude. The episodes are aired in 2020 so the end date of 2019 can be removed. I'll undo my edit. AldezD (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@AldezD: I'm not using any attitude, just trying to help you understand. And no, that is not how it works. The dates in infoboxes, etc are for episode premieres, not reruns. Those three episodes listed for 2020 are simply reruns, so once cancellation is confirmed, it would be "2018–19", not "2018–20". Reruns aren't used to determine if a show is 'present' or not. The Fairly OddParents still airs episodes on TV in 2020, but the end date is still 2017/July 26, 2017, as that was when the final new episode premiered. Magitroopa (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok do whatever you need. AldezD (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian Blood Wedding[edit source | edit]

Good afternoon, I am here to report what I suspect to be a case of original research on the article Macedonian Blood Wedding. Please note that I am new to Wikiafripedia so I am not entirely sure if it would classify as such. It namely has to do with the following edits [7] and [8]. First of all, all three of the sources cited to support the fact that Macedonian was considered a Bulgarian dialect do not even mention the play in question. In my opinion, that topic is how the Macedonian language was viewed at the time, which is more pertinent to articles like Macedonian language, Macedonian language naming dispute and Political views on the Macedonian language. One of my other concerns with those sources is that they contain super lengthy excerpts which are again completely unrelated to the article. The same applies to sources six and seven which again do not even mention Macedonian Blood Wedding. Secondly, another one of the sources the editor uses to support his claim , namely this one does not seem as the most reliable material to me; it is from a website called and again, it does not even mention the play nor its author (it is in Bulgarian so someone else who speaks the language can confirm that). So it seems to me that User: Jingiby tries to add a very biased, personal view of the language of the book. I agree that if there are any reliable and academic sources which mention the language used specifically related to the book, they should be mentioned in the article, however this user does not seem to provide them. Thank you very much in advance for considering this entry. P.S He also reverted my reverts to his edits so that is why I am taking the issue here. DD1997DD (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

[9] [10] Update: he keeps on adding more and more. DD1997DD (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: Many other contributions by this user also seem to follow similar patterns of making claims by using sources that do not even mention the article for which they are used. I explained his very biased way of writing articles on Talk:Macedonian Blood Wedding with a few examples. DD1997DD (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Request for Comment[edit source | edit]

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

  1. Blake, Aaron (January 2, 2018). "Republicans' Steele dossier conspiracy theory was dealt a big blow this weekend". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 6, 2019.
  2. Shear, Michael D.; Benner, Katie; Fandos, Nicholas (August 17, 2018). "Embracing Conspiracy Theory, Trump Escalates Attack on Bruce Ohr". The New York Times.
  3. Kruzel, John (July 23, 2018). "Trump falsely says Steele dossier triggered Russia probe". PolitiFact. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  4. Rupar, Aaron (March 22, 2019). "Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation". Vox. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
  5. Mueller, III, Robert S. (March 2019). "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  6. Goldman, Adam; Savage, Charlie (November 22, 2019). "Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts". The New York Times. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  7. Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice (December 9, 2019). "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" (PDF). Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  8. Sanchez, Julian (December 11, 2019). "The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings". Just Security. Retrieved December 23, 2019.
  9. Herridge, Catherine; Hymes, Clare; Segers, Grace; Quinn, Melissa (December 9, 2019). "Justice Department watchdog releases report on origins of Russia investigation". CBS News. Retrieved December 10, 2019.