Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 6 August 2017

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Archives

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

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

Quoting number of Google News hits

Is it original research to state "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" using a Google News url? Eg using this link to support "PolitiFact has been quoted 185 thousand times". Stickee (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Google's result counting is too variable to quote exact figures, but a statement such as "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times" would conform to WP:Primary as

1. a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and
2. free of interpretation.

Batternut (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an RS question at least in part. Many of those hits will be to the actual news site, others to who knows what, but meaningless. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 9 April 2017 (

No as your search results also comes upon with pages from PolitiFact, google will search for instances of the term, not how they are used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: incorrect, the search term "-site:politifact.com" in the example given removes those hits. Batternut (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apart fro this, self referencing Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That page quotes Politifact without linking to it. I don't see the problem...? Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course as with all Goggle hits, what they sau they gave found and the number of hits you get on the last page differs, the last pages says "Page 82 of about 158,000 results"Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This used to confuse me, though now I realise that Google gives at most 1000 results, and usually less, but it doesn't mean they have given you all possible hits. I haven't seen a full explanation from Google, I'd think it would probably be horribly technical - I suspect they start with the first 1000 contenders from the index, subsequent filters leave the 820 that you actually want, but thousands more contenders remain un-returned. Batternut (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

maybe, but it does not alter the fact that we cannot be sure that all the results are relevant (as you say "what we were looking "). This makes it hard to think of this as meeting verifiabilty, it may change based upon some random factor of googles (in fact it has it now returners "Page 82 of about 303,000 results".Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But "quoted thousands of times" was still verified by your query - true for about 303,000, about 185,000, or and about 158,000 results. For figures over 1000, whenever Google says "about x results", I would only describe as "quoted for hundreds / thousands / maybe tens or hundreds of thousands / millions of times". Batternut (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If we could actually verify 303,000 or 158,000, "thousands" would work just the same. But if Google only shows 810-820, that's all we're sure of, and that sure isn't one thousand. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

There is a bias in mentioning how many times something has been cited, because it implies the source is important. But we don't know that from the cite count, so it is implied synthesis. If a source has been cited x number of times is significant, then that should be found in reliable sources in a reliable secondary source. TFD (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Because "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources" (per WP:GOOGLEHITS) I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance, especially in the arena of modern news media where being heard and being echoed is more important than being right. Alas perhaps, but the importance is not implied, it is measured even if only to an approximate order of magnitude. Batternut (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have just written a justification for synthesis. But the policy remains against it and would have to be changed to allow the observation. I don't know what you mean by "the importance is not implied, it is measured." You just said, "Google News are more likely to return reliable sources." In other words a higher count implies greater importance, which is the only reason to include the count in the first place. TFD (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see it like giving book or record sales figures, eg 100 million copies of the Bible sell each year, The Doors sold 4,190,457 albums, or even California Girls reached No. 3 etc. Do these claims synthetically imply success, or are they a measure of it? Batternut (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bible figure is attributed to reliable secondary sources: The Economist and Russell Ash. Stickee (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but primary/secondary source is not actually pertinent to TFD's synthesis argument above. Batternut (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. We expect secondary sources to perform synthesis. If secondary sources consistently mention that the Bible sells 100 million copies per year, then we include it per "Balancing aspects." Reporters, historians and social scientists have their own criteria in deciding that is or is not significant. Our criteria is whatever they consider to be significant and we do not second guess their judgment. That is of value to readers because they want articles to present what is found in reliable secondary sources, not information that reliable secondary sources omit. If they want to know how many hits a news site has on Google, then they can do a Google search. TFD (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

An odd thing I've found about cite counts is that sometimes as you click through you'll find the count reduces dramatically. I did miss the bit in the search that eliminated the site, useful that, but Google News will still throw up some odd sources. Google Scholar is much worse. From the name you'd expect scholarly sources, but it also throws up woowoo. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The second click eliminates duplications, but it will ask you if you want to include them. Some of the sources are of course better than others, which is probably why it is a poor guide. I notice in the PolitiFact enquiry, the first page shows it has been quoted in PJ Media, the Daily Caller and NewsBusters, and they all trash it. You need expertise in journalism to interpret this or save time and just accept that it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So where in WP:SYNTH is there distinction between primary and secondary source? Does it really matter which reliable source gives us "The Doors sold 4,190,457" or "100 mill Bibles sold", so long as we are satisfied with its likely truth? Reliability is important, which is why it is specified in WP:Synth, but primary/secondary is not, which is why primary/secondary is not mentioned in WP:Synth. Batternut (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

---
It seems to me that the synthesis issues above do not have any policy basis, at least as far as stated in WP:SYNTH. For the following reasons:

(a) primary source is good enough - WP:SYNTH does not require secondary source,

(b) WP:SYNTH only talks about combining material; this claim is supported by a single part of one source,

(c) the claim is a statistic of a type found all over wikipedia, and "SYNTH is not ubiquitous", per WP:What_SYNTH_is_not.

Either of (b) or (c) above would mean, independent of all other factors, that the claim does not fall foul of WP:SYNTH, and I submit that both are true. IMHO. Batternut (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"of a type found all over wikipedia" I can't say I've seen anyone use Google News cite counts attributed to a search page before. Stickee (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that not an RS concern, rather than OR/synthesis? Batternut (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---
The discussion so far seems to me to amount to:

1. Synthesis does not apply.
2. Claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" is not verifiable given the approximate and variable nature of the source.
3. Claim "News site X has been quoted hundreds (or thousands) of times" is verifiable if Google News is considered reliable.

So, is this discussion the place to consider the reliability question, or should that go to WP:RSN? Or have I missed something? Batternut (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be both an OR and RS concern, since when you're performing OR there's no way concrete way to judge reliability of what you've conducted. Stickee (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Happily anybody can hit Google with the same query and get a result that justifies the claim. That's a primary source for you! Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, sorry for my late reply. The synthesis is implicit. As you said, "I think such cite counts do give a rough indicator of importance." Inclusion of the numbers implies that PolitiFact is important. That's what you are trying to convey whether you say it explicitly or merely imply it, by combining two facts: the number of hits and the implicit fact that a high number of hits is an indication of importance. TFD (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The second "implicit fact" of your argument is not a fact, it is an interpretation. Most statistics are subject to interpretations such as "more is better" (eg record sales), "less is better" (crime rates), it's what makes them interesting. Your view means the quoting of most statistics produces synthesis - quite possibly, but we do generally allow statistics! @The Four Deuces: Batternut (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is implicit synthesis in which facts we choose to report, which is why "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The prohibition is against synthesis by editors, not in reliable sources. Note the following article on VDARE's website: "Whites Down To 10% Of World Population By 2060— Does It Matter?" Citing stats has implicit synthesis so we don't cite stats we would not expect to find in reliable sources about the subject. We're not here to provide our personal takes on things, just to report what is in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The extreme VDARE page is an ad absurdum case - a closer example is the Fox News article claim "94,700,000 US households ... receive the Fox News Channel". That would count as "implicit synthesis" by the definition proposed above, but I think it's acceptable - because the proposed "implicit synthesis" does not correspond to policy in wp:Synth. The Fox News claim is actually covered by SYNTH is not ubiquitous. Regarding NPOV/Balancing aspects (WP:BALASP), that can only be decided in the context of a whole article - I don't think it helps evaluate whether a specific claim is OR. Batternut (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are missing my point. The statement that Fox News has 94M viewers is taken from a secondary source that ranks the networks. Indeed it is implicit synthesis, but that's okay, because it is synthesis by editors that is prohibited. Obviously we need writers of secondary sources to determine what is important.

The significance of VDARE is that they are also presenting stats with implicit synthesis. It is not a reductio ad absurdum. If editors are free to choose which stats to add based on their personal assessment of their importance then they can use them to promote their personal views of topics. TFD (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That VDARE page combines badly-referenced long-term forecasts with highly tendentious interpretations - neither "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", nor free of interpretation as required by WP:Primary. Which particular VDARE statement(s) are actually relevant here? Batternut (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Time to close this discussion! When closing, please bare in mind:

• The OP's claim "News site X has been quoted Y thousand times" got no support.
• The topic discussed was claim "PolitiFact has been quoted thousands of times".
  • arguments against it were: it's WP:SYNTH because giving a cite count implies importance; Google estimates are considered not verifiable, making an RS concern.
  • arguments for it were: WP:Primary is allowable; there's no combining of A and B to imply C; "implied synthesis" is a novel concept outside WP:SYNTH; stats are ubiquitous; only the magnitude of Google's estimate is being used, which is stable.

Batternut (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

OR-push at the talkpage of the Balloon boy hoax article

This is just a heads up that multiple new accounts have arrived at the talkpage of Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) trying to push a junk source from youtube, which aims to disprove the hoax by using heavy doses of original research. Just have a look at the latest wall of text by a new account. The article had to be protected due to relentless edit-warring by IPs. The new accounts have been posting walls of text at the talkpage for days where I have tried to explain to them why that source is junk, only to be met by stiff resistance and PAs. Somehow, noone from the article regulars has shown up to support my arguments and pick up the slack. I am not going to waste my time further on this hopeless task. The protection of the article expires on 15 July. So I would appreciate if at that time some editors check what is going on at that article. I have thought of bringing this report to RSN, BLPN, and even ANI, but, for now, I decided to bring it here. Any assistance/advice would also be welcome. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's less OR and more "I want to reference an internet conspiracy theorist", only when told that wasn't a good reference did they fall back to arguing the conspiracy theory on its merits. ApLundell (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There has only been one user which has discussed the "theory" and tried to convince others of it. I also responded to this user explaining Misplaced Pages is not in the business of giving weight to one side or the other of a legal case, and therefore is not i the business of declaring the event "not a hoax". What is being proposed, at least by me, is not that the allegations the subject makes be included and supported in the article; rather that the fact the subject made those allegations in that video be mentioned. Whether or not they are true is moot and trying to convince others about it as user "Anon" did is unnecessary. Bekeke1 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't be done. I have said this multiple times, but here is the latest: Everytime a youtuber or a blogger adds a video or a post to their channel or blog, we don't have to go after them and add it to Misplaced Pages. See WP:NOTBLOG. Dr. K. 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K, I appreciate you commitment to the integrity of this beautiful site. I agree with your claim that the video is not usable in the article under WP:RELIABLESOURCES, and that the repeated edit attempts have been unhelpful in resolving the issue. However, I also agree with user Bekeke1 in that the information presented within the video in question is very important, and should not be dismissed as a simple "fringe conspiracy theory", though the medium through which it is presented certainly makes it seem as such. The information and evidence Richard Heene presented is still new, despite the event having taken place years ago. If Heene was able to get his case presented through a different medium, such as an online article from a reputable source or a newspaper, would the information then be reliably presented enough to be considered for addition in the article? Thanks! --DiphthongHere (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Clearly this conspiracy theory won't fly, aha. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Images from Celestia as sources

An editor, User:NelsonWins, recently added a "View from this system" section on many articles about stars. As you can see in an example here, such edits are unsourced. When asked about it, NelsonWins replied that his/her only source is Celestia, an open-source software, and that he/she soon will provide pictures in order to providing sources. I believe that using Celestia, NelsonWins simply centered on a star and visually deduced the sky view from here; I think it falls under original research, yet I am not completely certain of it. Could someone confirm/reject my thought? Khruner (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a bit questionable both in method and whether this is a quality addition to the articles. On one hand I don't believe that reporting something a reliable primary source clearly depicts is original research. However, if NelsonWins is comparing two different pieces of output and making characterizations about the differences and similarities that would probably be WP:SYNTH since neither of the primary sources nor any secondary source are providing those characterizations. I think the questions are whether Celestia is a reliable primary source and how obviously the output supports what NelsonWins is describing. I'm just a newbie though. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Median wage

This article is the matter of a dispute Is calculating median wages from the OECD data considered original research, or not? And is using tax calculators for deriving net wages considered as OR rule violation? It was calculated, because more complex calculation were done and nobody called it original reseacrhes. Like here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1_to_106_J reference 72: "Kinetic energy at start of jump = potential energy at high point of jump. Using a mass of 70 kg and a high point of 40 cm => energy = m*g*h = 70 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 40e-2 m = 274 J" Jeune091 (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear the user calculated after tax income by using tax calculators found online and posting the results. As for the derivation of median wages, the ratio found was multiplied against average wages---the ratio itself is derived from a different set of data vs what underlies the average wage figure (which stems from the national accounts). Therefore it's purely a guesstimate, which is not analagous to the mathematical example posted above (which is certainly not a guess). Therefore the user is inferring a conclusion that is nowhere in the source. Lneal001 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to clarify myself as well.

I used statistics from OECD, particulary these two tables.

For example, if we want to calculate gross median wage, we use certain numbers:

1)80,070 is average annual salary for Australia in AUD. We take it from this source. By going there, you can see that average gross annual wage for Australia is 80,070 AUD

2)0.53 means that minimum wage equals 53% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here If you will look at the left, you will see that both tables for average wages and for ratios are in the same section, therefore the source still the same.

3)0.44 means that minimum wage equals 44% of median wage. To get those numbers, we go here again, so we're still using the same source as before. As in, we use the source which provides ratio twice. The same source. Twice.

4)Now mathematics begins. To calculate median/average wage ratio, we divide 0.44 by 0.53. The number we'll get is a ratio of median wage in relation to average, which we recieved by using information from the same source. We used it twice. This source. Twice.

5)The number we've got, particulary 0.83 means, that median wage equals 83% of median wage.

6)Then, to get gross median salary, we mulpily 80,070 by 0.83. 80,070*0.83=66,458. To recieve this number, we used two sources from the same section. This one and that one. The latter we used twice, when we used ratio of minimum to average and minum to median.

7)66,458 AUD is median gross wage. And to quote the source: "

For cross-country comparisons, data on minimum wage levels are further supplemented with another measure of minimum wages relative to average wages, that is, the ratio of minimum wages to median earnings of full-time employees. Median rather than mean earnings provide a better basis for international comparisons as it accounts for differences in earnings dispersion across countries. However, while median of basic earnings of full-time workers - i.e. excluding overtime and bonus payments - are, ideally, the preferred measure of average wages for international comparisons of minimum-to-median earnings, they are not available for a large number of countries.

Minimum relative to mean earnings of full-time workers are also provided.

Here's the link to that note and an image just in case.

So, I really fail to see pure guess in here. And I'm waiting for the verdict. Jeune091 (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are using different methods for different states (for istance tax calcuctors of different sources and others).I just checked for Italy by "Calcolo stipendio netto" site(Italian tax calculator,not the one you posted).First of all the net changes by region and second the net is around 1500€(not 1374€ as you wrote).You did the same mistakes for other countries.Your article is very original since the beginning (like similar ones of the same sector).Misplaced Pages left too much space to original reserach in wages related articles till now.Benniejets (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

God and Sex

This is about . I do not feel like reverting it, but I would like advice from third parties upon whether this is OK. As far I understand it, no third-party quotations are required for the abstract, see e.g. Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman). I treated the book as a primary source. It is not a review or a critical commentary and passes no value judgments upon the book. The book itself is being quoted, and the views expressed therein are literal readings of the book (no other form of interpretation involved). I only mentioned stuff which is (a) interesting (as in producing surprise to those who have not studied the Bible) and (b) can be easily rendered in a few words. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember my thought process because that was awhile ago. But I think my first concern about a potential copyright violation was that it's an excessively long quote. Even with proper attribution, you can only use small portions. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but it's pretty close to this example that was subject to a lawsuit. #2. Even if it's not a copyright violation, lengthy excerpts from a book don't belong in its encyclopedia entry (see WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT). —PermStrump(talk) 05:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: just in case. —PermStrump(talk)

@Permstrump: I have read the reply. I am still waiting for other opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Badger culling in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Wikipedians. I'd like to update our article on Badger culling in the United Kingdom, and I'm pleased to see that we have some actual numbers. I'd like to say that more than 10,000 badgers were culled in 2016, based on this source; and to say that in 2015 we slaughtered more than 28,000 cattle to control bovine tuberculosis, based on this source. Then I'd like to say that we're killing nearly three times as many cows as badgers. I don't have a source for that last bit but I think it's okay under WP:CALC? (Source for both figures is Defra.)—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would leave it out. WP:CALC is not the problem here. This sort of comparative statement implies an equivalence between the two events (in this example, between culling a badger and culling a cow) that is not necessarily correct and is certain original research to assume. CIreland (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right to say that I should use wording that doesn't imply equivalence. There's no assumption going on here ---- both sources are from the same British government agency and the context of both is culling to control bovine tuberculosis.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't WP:CALC from two different years' numbers to come up with an overall rate. They are not like figures. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether Oxford English Dictionary can be cited after Misplaced Pages editors consulted it to find the absence of an entry.

Does that constitute original research ?

Specifically, to add wording to article mainspace, The last print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) does not include this word; neither do the latest electronic updates as of June 2017.

Is that Misplaced Pages editors doing their own original research and reporting on what they've found to be the absence of an entry, as opposed to citing a specific entry itself ?

Sagecandor (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is original research. What is wrong with this approach is that it implies a word has declined in usage when there could be other reasons for the exclusion. Also, the OED is not the only dictionary and it could be that others have included the word. And per weight, the facts we present should be in accordance with their presence in reliable sources. If no reliable sources have noted the omission then we should not either. TFD (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Agree with everything you said, thank you. Please see . Perhaps you can explain it there, better than I can ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Now in main article text, at . Sagecandor (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Is it original research to include this source in this way , to advance a point by the user about what they feel it may or may not mean for a particular source to not mention something? Sagecandor (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, you sum up the issue VERY well. Editors are not free to state in Misplaced Pages's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence. Failing in that OR mission, they should not say anything. To add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing.

We do have RS which say that whataboutism was practiced, obviously before the term itself came into use. Our article covers the concept and the word. Whether or not the term was included in some dictionary is another matter. Dictionaries, like Misplaced Pages, are always behind the curve. We must not conflate the two issues. The only thing we can say about the origins or first usages of the word itself is what RS actually say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it is absolutely OR. The citation is asking the reader to perform the same OR act. This is now what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how citing a dictionary is OR, and I don't think a dictionary is a primary source. The Oxford English Dictionary proclaims itself the definitive record of the English language. Simply stating that "whataboutism" is not in the OED is simply stating a fact that can easily be checked. It is not just any dictionary; it is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (outside of the USA, at least). The 1989 print edition runs to 20 volumes and aimed to record every word in English usage. If it is OK to cite the inclusion of a word in a dictionary, it should be OK to cite the non-inclusion. Otherwise the process is biased towards editors who say that "whataboutism" was prevalent during the Cold War. They can gather together every stray mention, most of which lead back to Edward Lucas in the Economist in 2007-2008, and cite that as proof. Reference to the OED, however, indicates that "whataboutism" was not a prominently used term. To omit this is to give misleading information to our readers, and runs the risk of citogenesis. More and more writers will read this Misplaced Pages article and accept that the term was common currency in the Cold War. They will then mention this fact in articles, and these articles will be cited in this Misplaced Pages article as further proof. I don't think the article should say that Lucas was wrong, or anything like that. I just think we should be able to cite the OED to establish the level of usage of this term historically.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What is OR is stating that there is no entry. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you can't prove a negative, I think it should be considered OR to state the absence of something. If an RS notes the absence, that's fine, but we can't make that jump. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You can prove it. Anyone can check by accessing the dictionary themselves. I don't see why it's not OR to cite an entry, but OR to cite the absence of an entry. The actions involved are the same: checking a page or querying a database...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's more synthesis than OR. The argument seems to be "Oxford doesn't have an entry for the word (fact), so the word is of questionable validity (synthesis)", even if the last part is unstated. Why bring it up? The only reason seems to question the validity of the term as a WP editor, which is synthesis without a secondary source making that judgement. Same would be true to try to justify that a term is used just because there is an entry in OED; that's synthesis without the secondary source. And as others have said, OED is not the only dictionary we have access to as an RS, just perhaps the oldest and most reliable. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Elaborating on what I said about this in another thread here: in this case OED is being used as a primary source. We can make descriptive statements about it as long as they don't involve interpretation or synthesis, which depends on specific context. In this particular case, the statement did not convey any synthetic or interpretive claim (though I see that it did to other editors), and I only questioned its pertinence. However, similar uses of OED could be valid in a different context, and we don't want to renounce our ability to cite primary sources when secondary sources make false statements about primary sources, and there are no secondary sources which directly contradict them. For example, if a secondary source falsely states that some edition of OED contains a certain entry, we can cite the primary source to indicate otherwise. More realistically, if some secondary source states that a certain word was used in a certain sense during some period and OED does not include this sense in the relevant section, we can make that descriptive statement about OED. Eperoton (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to Masem, the point in citing the OED from 1989 is not to "question the validity of the term", but rather to show that it was not in widespread currency during the Cold War. Citing the current OED to say it still isn't included would give the reader some indication of its currency today and its acceptability in English usage. I think that's pretty important when discussing terminology. I agree it would be synthesis to put the OED together with other sources and come to some conclusion, but I don't think that citing an absence purely and simply is either original research or synthesis. If it was cited in the OED, no doubt the other side of the debate would cite that entry with much fanfare. It is biased to say that absence can't be cited.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can a Misplaced Pages user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether The Economist can be cited, and a blog by the same author, to show what a Misplaced Pages editor feels is "first documented usage of a word" DIFF.

Secondary sources disprove this and state it was not the first documented usage of the word.

(1). The Economist source itself, by author Edward Lucas, himself says in that very article that it is NOT the first usage of the word:

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

(2). We also know this assertion to be outright false from a prior source from 1994:

• Austin, Joe (1994). "The obdurate and the obstinate". In Parker, Tony (ed.). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us? ... That had nothing to do with it, and if you got into it you were defending the indefensible.

Despite this, can a Misplaced Pages user cite a 2007 and 2008 source as first usage of a word, when that is a primary source and not a secondary source?

As the 2007 and 2008 source themselves explicitly state they themselves are NOT the first usage of the word ?

Is this original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Many words, probably most, have nobody keeping track of their origin, nobody to speak for when they were first used occurred. And so it seems utterly well-reason for a person to be able to look at the plethora of records modernly available via the Internet, and state from that that one embodies the earliest occurrence of a word. And for any other person to present a finding earlier still. To me, it would seem, then, that the solution would be to describe all of the several earliest uses. Give their context, and so let them speak for themselves. Pandeist (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, the Economist is being used as a primary source and the linked diff introduces a synthetic statement about this source and other primary sources, which violates WP:PRIMARY and hence constitutes OR. Eperoton (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with analysis by Eperoton, you understand this correctly. Does that mean it also violates WP:SYNTHESIS ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, synthetic claims which are not explicitly stated in RSs can also be viewed as violations of WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We should only use secondary sources and avoid original research. I came across this issue a few years ago when an editor found a use of the term "socialist" in a book from the 1700s, while secondary sources said the word was coined in the 1800s. Turns out they were using a Google books copy of a 19th century reprint which retained the original publication date. The original used the obsolete word "scoliast," and a typesetter had inadvertently changed it. Fortunately, some editors were knowledgeable about both religious terminology and publication practices in the 18th and 19th centuries, and had access to the original book. But at the end of the day it was a waste of everyone's time and had it not been for the attention of some highly knowledgeable editors, the article would have included false information. TFD (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Agreed, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have restored the material documenting use of the word by Lucas but removing the assertion that it was first use. Please also note that no prior use has been demonstrated by editors who nevertheless insist that the term was in wide use pre-2007 and even in "Soviet times", i.e. pre-1991. I agree with Pandeist that we should simply show the various documented uses in the written record, subsequent claims of prior use (attributed), dictionary entries or lack thereof, in order to provide the most complete overview of possible etymology for our readers. The can make up their mind based on all facts available. — JFG 09:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with by BullRangifer. Sagecandor (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly ok with JFG's latest edit, though I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning that the term doesn't appear in OED. Via my subscription to Oxford Reference I can also tell you that the cited entry from Oxford Living Dictionaries appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) . By the way, it's odd that the related term whataboutery (Oxford Collins) redirects to the article under the discussion, but the article makes no mention of it. Eperoton (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you for mentioning that the cited entry from Oxford Living Dictionaries appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) . Can you provide the full citation and full entry for that please ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The bibliographical info is available this side of the paywall: Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.), Edited by Angus Stevenson, Publisher: Oxford University Press, Print Publication Date: 2010, Print ISBN-13: 9780199571123, Published online: 2010, Current Online Version: 2015, eISBN: 9780191727665. Eperoton (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you. Can you elaborate, please, on your comment "though I'm not sure what's the point of mentioning that the term doesn't appear in OED." ??? Sagecandor (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just literally, I'm not sure. I'm not particularly concerned about it, since it doesn't convey to me any particular unsourced conclusion, and so doesn't obviously qualify as WP:SYN, but it doesn't seem obviously pertinent either. Eperoton (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:The absence of an entry in the OED is being used on talk:Whataboutism to make claims about what this may or may not mean. I'm afraid the same will be added into the article body text, if the mention is allowed to remain. Can you elaborate here on whether it is appropriate to draw conclusions from why or why not there isn't an entry in the OED, but there is an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not specific enough for me to comment on. Eperoton (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton, here's my understanding: Editors are not free to state in Misplaced Pages's voice something not explicitly stated in a RS. They must not use an absence of evidence as evidence of absence, partially (there could be myriad other reasons) because that "absence of evidence" is based on their own inability to "find" (OR!!!) some evidence. Failing in that OR mission, they should not say anything. To add unsourced commentary on their failure is OR editorializing.

We do have RS which say that whataboutism was practiced, obviously before the term itself came into use. Our article covers the concept and the word. Whether or not the term was included in some dictionary is another matter. Dictionaries, like Misplaced Pages, are always behind the curve. We must not conflate the two issues. The only thing we can say about the origins or first usages of the word itself is what RS actually say. Saying more can be OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: In this case OED is being used a primary source. We can make factual statements about it, but not interpretive or synthetic statements. I don't see interpretation or synthesis in its current use, and that's why I'm only questioning its pertinence. Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Back to The Economist, can this be cited as a primary source , to advance a point about when the user feels is the first usage of the term? Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes this is completely WP:OR. This is a perennial hard problem (how do you cite the lack of finding something) but what we need do in those cases, is just cite the earliest thing we can find as the article does currently with: "British journalist Edward Lucas used the word whataboutism In a blog post of October 29, 2007"....

But there are much more fundamental problems with this article, which is not being grappled with directly - namely the whole article is wrongly footed. Whataboutery/whataboutism are just a british term for the general pot/kettle argument, widely used in UK politics going back at least to the 1970s. It is not a specialized term for Soviet/Russian propaganda, like the article makes it out to be. I think this is JFG's point, being made in completely the wrong way - a policy violating way - in this article. As discussed at its Talk page at Talk:Whataboutism#Problematic -- Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are oh so right! The scope of the article should be expanded. There is nothing in the way of adding more content. The basic idea is no doubt thousands of years old. Even children use this basic logical fallacy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, when I looked at the article, I had the exact same concern. I've requested this WSJ article, which I believe discusses the history of use of these two terms, through Resource Exchange so I can help fixing this issue. Eperoton (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In terms of an article on this logical fallacy, we should bear in mind there is already an article on the tu quoque fallacy.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH issue

I think we have a WP:SYNTH issue going on over at Alternative Facts. The material in question is: "According to rapid transit ridership data and photographic evidence Spicer's claims and allegations were false."

After I removed the material in question , user Volunteer Marek promptly reverted it , summarizing his edit with "they say it. It's called paraphrasing." As none of the sources say anything about "Spicer's claims and allegations" being "false," this appears to be textbook SYNTH (which VM refers to as "paraphrasing"). He defended his position on the talk page with similar reasoning. The other issue of course, is that the material states that the conclusion of the "claims and allegations" was made by the ridership data, rather than the sources. Since a person (VM in this case) would have to do some math and determine if the numbers match up, that would be WP:OR. Although even if the material stated "According to the New York Times and CNN," it would still be original research since the sources do not say (or paraphrase) what VM's material is claiming. The opinions of uninvolved third parties on this dispute would be most welcome. Thanks!

1. Stelter, Brian (January 21, 2017). "White House press secretary attacks media for accurately reporting inauguration crowds". CNN. Retrieved January 21, 2017.
2. Wallace, Tim; Yourish, Karen; Griggs, Troy. "Trump's Inauguration vs. Obama's: Comparing the Crowds". The New York Times.
3. Mijnssen, Ivo (January 23, 2017). "Die Parallelwelt des Trump-Teams: "Alternative Fakten sind Lügen"". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). Retrieved January 25, 2017.

Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what "original research" means. If I had collected ridership data myself and made this conclusion myself that would be original research. But I didn't. It's actually the reliable secondary sources given in the article - which you are removing - which come to this conclusion based on ridership data. So in fact this is like a perfect illustration of what original research is NOT. The sources do in fact say what the material is claiming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, since you're active on the Sean Spicer page, you're also well aware that there are plenty of other sources (not that they're necessary here) to back up these claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I'm very clear on WP:SYNTH, and there's nothing in the sources that say anything about "false" statements. That's your own opinion, which you synthesized yourself from two sources. But let's just let some uninvolved third parties weigh in instead of rehashing the same disagreement here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Volunteer Marek. These are secondary sources. The CNN source, cited above, verifies the ridership info. Sagecandor (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The text accurately reflects the sources. Here's what the CNN article says,

comment came after a long digression about how many people had shown up to watch Trump be sworn in as president.

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data....

And Spicer said, "We know that 420,000 people used the D.C, Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 for president Obama's last inaugural."

Spicer's number for ridership on Friday was actually low -- the correct number, according to Metro itself, was 570,557. But there were actually 782,000 trips taken for Obama's second inaugural in 2013.

The clear implication of the article is that spicer misrepresented the ridership numbers in order to support the false claim that more people attended the inaugaral.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's implied, maybe it's not. As editors, we don't get to infer information from sources - the source either says the statement is false or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't. Note: It'd be great if we could have someone weigh in besides "the usual suspects," so to speak. Nothing personal against anyone here, but I think we need some fresh eyes on this that don't usually venture into the political areas. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There are myriad RS which explicitly say that Spicer's (and Trump's) claim was false, and some of them provide the ridership numbers as evidence. Fact checking sites did this quite a bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's true, you're more than welcome to add them yourself to the article, but the existing sources did not support the material. And again, even if they did, the material states "According to ridership data," when it would need to state "According to the New York Times/WaPo/CNN/Mother Jones," etc. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It certainly is implied. The writer says that Spicer made false statements, then contrasts his crowd comparison with the facts. No reasonable reader would question whether the implication was that his statement about the number of transit riders was false. It's not synthesis, it's basic reading comprehension. TFD (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The source quotes Spicer and then contrasts his claims with what "actually" happened, and it does this in the midst of a passage on "several specific misstatements of fact." To say that Spicer's statements were false is a straightforward summary. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You changed your thesis a few times here, TFD. First you say it's "implied," then you say that a writer said the statement is false (rather than implied), then you say that anyone who doesn't share your inference that the statement is false is "unreasonable." So which is it? Does the writer say the statement is false or does the writer imply that the statement is false? If you think it's implied, then that's SYNTH. In nearly every WaPo and NYT story involving Spicer, the "news"room is implying that Spicer is all sorts of terrible things. That doesn't mean we look at the story of CNN not being invited to a press briefing and say, "Oh well WaPo is clearly implying that Spicer doesn't care about the first amendment and wants to shut down free speech so we need to put that in the article." If the sources say the statement is false, the reader does not need "basic reading comprehension" to understand that the source is saying the statement is false - the reader only needs to know how to read. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The writer "said" that Spicer made false statements, he "implied" that the transit ridership statement was one of them and it is "unreasonable" to read the article in any other way. Your argument sounds like one Trump would make. The difference is that it only works for him. TFD (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ouch! That was a good one. But let's stay on the content and not go after editors - nobody wants to go down that road. Which source stated that his statement was false? Could you copy-paste the line on this page, please? I want to see this explicit statement that you believe any other interpretation of would be "unreasonable." Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have answered you. At this point you are being disruptive and are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, I am discussing an OR/SYNTH issue on the OR noticeboard. By definition, discussion not regarding the material (your little remark, just now) is the only type of edit that can be disruptive. If you can find the statement that TFD is referencing, please post it here. Otherwise, I will ask you to kindly let the issue resolve itself naturally. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory allegations in a biographical article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, could someone please look at Talk:Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)? A user has made slanderous remarks about this individual, with no reliable sources to back them up. They allege that they are related to the subject, and that the injurious statements are well-known "facts" in social circles in Oslo. Would be grateful if someone could look into this. --81.166.16.244 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What is Texas's age of consent?

This is actually a question that's been discussed for some time at: Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas (under "Indiana section now outdated"). It's a tough subject because Texas has two laws that may affect the age of consent:

• section 21.11 of title 5: "Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:"
• section 43.25(b): "Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section: (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age." inducement of sexual conduct and for sexual activity involving "visual representation or employment" at 18

There had been two convictions under 43.25 John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker which did not involve commercial performances nor visual representation, with only incitement to do a sexual act.

Situation from published reliable sources:

• Texas newspapers say that the age of consent is 17 (I haven't seen an article from a Texas newspaper citing Dornbusch or stating that it's in fact 18)
  • Houston Chronicle: "The case illustrates the gray area of criminal responsibility for teens having sex before they are legally able to consent at the age of 17."
  • Dallas Morning News: "The age of consent in Texas is 17."
• Stephen L. Carter (Yale University professor) argued on the basis of John Perry Dornbusch and Todd William Baker that in fact the AOC is 18 even though some defense lawyers didn't believe so (one example of a defense lawyer that he cited)
• Eugene Volokh of the Washington Post considered Stephen Carter's arguments: "As best I can tell, 30 states set the general age of consent at sixteen; 8 set it at seventeen; and 12 set it at eighteen (though it’s possible that the last there are actually 7 at seventeen and 13 at eighteen, because of an odd twist with Texas law). Over 60 percent of the population lives in the states that set the age of consent at 16 or 17, regardless of how one counts Texas." - He didn't definitely decide whether Texas AOC should be set at 17 or 18

Currently on the U.S. age of consent map Texas is colored gray for other/unknown instead of a specified age

User:Fabrickator argued that because the Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d (this requires a payment to view) recently published a statement in the section "20 Tex. Jur. 3d Criminal Law: Offenses Against Public Order" saying: "The language of this provision criminalizes the inducement of a child's sexual conduct regardless of whether it amounts to a sexual performance, and it applies to nonpornographic, noncommercial sexual conduct by children." (and because of other explanations in Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas in regards to how incitement of sexual conduct was criminalized), Misplaced Pages ought to say that 18 is definitely the age of consent in Texas, arguing that any statements saying that the age of consent are 17 are not true.

I argue that because at this time secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) haven't come to a consensus that 18 should be considered the age of consent, and the Texas state government and major newspapers have never made an announcement (in a medium read by the "ordinary Joe") explicitly clarifying that 18 and not 17 is the age of consent on the basis of Dornbusch and Baker, the article should not definitely state which age is Texas's age of consent and instead summarize the various views by columnists and present the exact quote from the source Fabrickator found.

Lastly I will say that in regards to my proposal to ask the Texas state government and/or major newspapers to make a public announcement to clarify what the "age of consent" is in the state (my suggestion to Fabrickator to get this matter cleared up), this is a perfectly reasonable request on the grounds of:

• Prosecutors do prosecute on the grounds of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse", so clarity on the law is warranted
• It is the job of government officials to explain the laws they write, interpret, and enforce
• The vast majority of ordinary people don't even think of reading Texas Jurisprudence®, 3d, let alone paying for it, nor will they think of searching for legal cases that get scant coverage in the media (I don't think any Texas outlets have ever published any articles saying that Dornbusch and Baker have changed/affected the state age of consent - such articles would be warranted!) - therefore government officials should publish "plain speech" and/or "TL/DR" summaries of the realities/interpretations of such laws.

@Fabrickator: WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify: What part in all of this relates to the issue of Original Research? Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I fear that if one, based on the above presented, says the age of consent is certainly 18, it may be counted as original research due to ambiguities over the wording "inducement of a child's sexual conduct" (what forms of inducement? what does that mean?) in the 18+ law, as well as due to the lack of agreement between the secondary sources (note that while "Texas newspapers say that" lists two examples, there are many other newspaper articles which say the age of consent is 17). WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

OK... here is my take: we have one statute that says 17, and another that says 18... thus Misplaced Pages can not say that one or the other is the definitive age of consent. Instead we need to note both ages, and the statutes that apply. Don't interpret the statutes ... just neutrally present what they say. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. Above I suggested not definitely stating an age of consent. I don't see a problem including interpretations from other secondary sources as long as they're presented as such, such as Stephen Carter's, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F a user e-mailed me the Texas Jurisprudence article. He read the Baker v. Texas link which stated "the plain language of section 43.25(b) authorizes the prosecution of those who induce persons younger than eighteen years old to, among other things, have sexual intercourse." and based on that believes the age of consent is unambiguously 18; the Wikipedian believes that (his words): "It scarcely matters that there is also a different criminal provision with a minimum age of 17." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm the editor just quoted. I didn't realize that this was about an OR issue.

The OR issues here are a bit tricky. None of the secondary sources cited above are reliable sources: lay newspapers are not RS for legal conclusions, and neither are unedited blog posts. So can we simply say that the Texas age of consent is 18, or is that WP:SYN? I think this is a fairly close issue on the WP:SYN issue, but what carries the day for me is that a Texas court, in the course of discussing these two statutes, actually said that the Texas age of consent is 17. Ex parte Fujisaka, 472 S.W.3d 792, 800, 801 (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

On the other hand, we can't just say that the age of consent is 17, either. The Texas Department of Public Safety has taken the position that the Texas age of consent is 18. Appellant's Brief, Texas Department of Public Safety v. Garcia, 2010 WL 1366961, at 8 (Tex. Ct. App. filed Feb. 1, 2010). And this is clearly a reasonable position for the department to take. So for us to choose one age over the other would be WP:SYN. We need to say that there are two different statutes that have been characterized as age of consent statutes in Texas, with two different ages (17 and 18), with perhaps a brief discussion of each.

If anyone wants a copy of any of the documents I've cited, email me and I can reply with a PDF. The Fujisaka case may be available on the web, I haven't checked. John M Baker (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your research! It's really helpful and answers a lot of questions.

As for lay newspapers being unreliable sources for law, it may help to put that in Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (law) if there's a consensus for that position among Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Law editors. However "Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (law)" is currently just an essay.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

To switch gears a bit, would anybody care to speculate why Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header (click on the "show" link) defines special rules pertaining to the quality of the "age of consent" pages? Fabrickator (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller/Jim Acosta debate

We have a few editors trying to add content to Stephen Miller (political advisor) without going through the hassle of getting consensus on the talk page. The content in question is: "Miller attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism, accusing them of a "cosmopolitan bias". Supposedly this content is supported by an op-ed in Politico and a New York Times piece, but there is nothing that says anything about "attacked" or "deficit of nationalism." This is possibly BLP-violating material also that is being repeatedly inserted, so I have no qualms if an admin would care to slide this over to that noticeboard instead. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The above analysis by Mr. Tempo claims that Mr. Stephen Miller neither "attacked" his critics nor accused said critics of a "deficit of nationalism", both claims are startlingly incorrect. Addressing the former claim, the New York Times states that Mr. Miller, quote "ripped into a reporter" , while the Politico source goes at length to detail the history of the "cosmopolitan" insult, and notes that it is "a clear implication that there is something less patriotic, less loyal", i.e saying such things to a person is clearly an attack. Addressing the latter claim, the phrase "deficit of nationalism" directed at a person simply means that the speaker believes the target to be lacking in nationalism or pride in one's country, that one is (in this case, less American. Again, the Politico source speaks precisely to the context of Mr. Miller's "cosmopolitan bias", and how it has been used by Stalin to justify the Soviet Purge, and cites noted white nationalist Richard Spencer's cheering of Mr. Miller's attack of Mr. Acosta.

In conclusion, I feel the complaints levied by Mr. Tempo to be without merit. TheValeyard (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretations of the op-ed. It served as a nice summary/breakdown of what "original research" is. Please stop calling me "Mr. Tempo", though. It sounds absurd. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Miller accused a specific reporter of having a "cosmopolitan bias". He may have had in mind the whole of "fake media" but we don't know that. Misplaced Pages article should stick to facts not interpretations, that close to events. Interpretations can come later, when someone writes a book or a scholarly article on Miller's career, including this particular incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The term "cosmopolitan" is a code word used by the far right for Jews. It was a statement that Jews were not citizens of the countries where they lived. However, we do not know whether Miller was aware of that and we have no reliable sources on it. The way the text is phrased implies that he is anti-Semitic without any reliable sources that report that opinion. If actual news stories cover the matter, then we could report on it, because then we would know the weight of the accusation and his response. TFD (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the sources address whether he knew or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I agree with your reasoning, and appreciate your neutrality in interpreting the sources. However, I have no idea what source you are using for the supposed "code word" meaning of "cosmopolitan." I see no dictionary that echoes this sentiment, and can only find a few op-eds penned by fierce critics of Donald Trump, Republicans, and opinions with which they do not agree in general. As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan," not the definition of some Politico blogger who used it to smear a Trump advisor. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Politico citation goes into a great deal of history behind the term. You can't make excuses for someone who plainly and demonstrably uses a historically bigoted code-word. That would be original research. TheValeyard (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You still aren't fully grasping the meaning of original research. It doesn't matter if Jeff over at Politico agrees with you about the meaning of "cosmopolitan." You can't use an op-ed to make a statement of fact. Period. I have explained this to you numerous times, but you instead choose to eschew the advice of far more experienced editors and soldier onward with your BLP violating material without gaining consensus. And that is why you have now found yourself the subject of an AN/I report. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully welcome an ANI report; at the very least I will able to be judged fairly and honestly by editors who have no prior involvement in this, rather than by your repeated condescending attempts. I am grasping the concept of original research just fine; in fact let me point out an example of it, Mr. Tempo. Look above where you said {tq|"As I see it, Miller was using the dictionary definition of "cosmopolitan..."}}. Those 4 words at the beginning demonstrate that you are basing your editing choices on your personal opinion rather than on reliable sources. TheValeyard (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

HT, you're the one who started it with the "adding content without hassle of getting consensus on the talk page". I then added additional content on the same topic and backed it with reliable sources. At that point you realized that the way reliable sources covered the material wasn't in line with your pov so you switched to trying to remove it. Then Lambden jumped in because... well, because he stalks my edits. Other users tweaked the wording to have a "compromise" version and it looked for a second like the matter was settled. But that wasn't good enough for you so you restarted the edit warring basically saying "it's my way or the highway". Of course Lambden supported you in this, but everyone else (multiple editors) opposed. Along the way, both you and Lambden have failed to discuss the matter productively and have instead resorted to personal attacks (including making false derogatory accusations about other editors - to be fair, that was mostly Lambden, although HiddenTempo also played his part). Other editors came to the discussion and the page and objected to you two guys' WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. At that point you realized consensus was against you. So you did what any seasoned WP:BATTLEGROUND warrior would do, you came running here and Lambden went to the drama boards (ANI). The whole episode is one sorry example of WHAT NOT TO DO ON WIKIPEDIA. You two have done the POV, you have done the EDIT WAR, you did the PERSONAL ATTACK, you did the BATTLEGROUND and now you're doing the WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution