Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Wikipedia:Purge)
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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 Wikipedia.
  • 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:


mentioned wrong history on bhumihar[edit]

history on bhumihar written on the article is not correct. the content is abusive and sprading a wrong message in the community so please give your attention on this topic because wikipedia common for collectin the information. so you should give your attention on the credibility of wekipedia.

i am giving you the genetic report of NCBI on bhumihar , which prove that bhumihar and brahmin have same genetic. thank you link:- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:a0c2:55a7:f17a:3ace:1c33:9029 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Cowboy bedroll[edit]

The Cowboy bedroll page seems to have rather a lot of original research, particularly in "The traveling cowboy" subsection which spends quite a long time criticising a source without providing any supporting material. The editor who added this analysis seems to have done a lot of research themselves and I don't necessarily doubt their conclusions, but would the NOR policy cover this? It makes it very hard to take the article at face value because it's clear the editor has performed their own analysis and isn't citing their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.176.28 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[edit]

This article - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail - has the tone and content of a white paper for a think tank, rather than an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.22.31 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Ahbash[edit]

Original research is likely here regarding Al-Azhar in the article. Would like input regarding this RFC [1]

Tulsa race riot original research about a fire[edit]

Most of this set of edits[2] is an OR attempt to explain what happened during a fire using sources that do not mention the riot. Seems classic synthesis but the IP disagrees. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

please discuss your issues on the page's talk page so that editors can understand your concerns.175.36.196.38 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe this may actually be an NPOV issue, so editors please be aware of the ongoing NPOV that Doug Weller is trying to avoid by calling the discussion of the matter original research.175.36.196.38 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I've no clue what NPOV issue the IP is referring to. The whole section "New eyewitness account" is full of OR, from using sources discussing fires but not the Tulsa riot to make an argument against the account to "Franklin creatively describes", "He did not report", and " In many ways, this account mirrors accounts previously examined by Warner". Suitable for an essay but not for Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The IP's latest edit includes, unsourced, "Furthermore it curious that witnesses claimed Brady dedicated the tarring and feathering to, "the women and children of Belgium." The reference to Belgium may be a reference to the WW1 occupation of Belgium by Germany." Doug Weller talk 17:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
'It is curious that...' is pure EDITORIALIZING; '...may be a reference to...' is speculation, which without attribution certainly becomes OR. Also agree that the series of edits shown above is SYNTH - it's joining dots between sources, explaining the reasoning, and drawing possible conclusions. The conclusions might well be reasonable (I haven't read the sourcing properly yet), but they seem to be a novel synthesis that isn't explicit in the sources. GirthSummit (blether) 18:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

if you check the article revision history, immediately after i reverted your deletion I did in fact add the section NPOV and appropriately referenced it in the edit summary, "23:12, 19 December 2018‎ 175.36.196.38 (talk)‎ . . (95,119 bytes) +60‎ . . (→‎New eyewitness account: added npov tag POV-section|talk=John W. Franklin|date=December 20,2018)"

this is another issue entirely but if it must be discussed here instead of the NPOV section then I will do so. The tulsa daily world article in that section relating to brady mentions only unnamed assailants. it was assumed, based on the half of a document provided by the Land Press, authored by LA brown, that the ringleader was W Tate Brady. On the first page of that archived Tulsa Daily World paper refers to a group of men arrested outside the I.W.W. headquarters. no mention of the race of the victims in this particular tarring incident is mentioned by either Brown or the TDW article. instead, brown mentions a trade unionist movement and strikes while the TDW article mentions a number of...im not sure if they can be considered factual or fanciful articles about IWW members being arrested with deadly new secret poisons. the TDW ran a few articles on the IWW during the war, none of them seeming particularly factual. anyway, the IWW was a trade union and the men were targeted for belonging to the trade union. purportedly so, according to the TDW article and L.A. Brown memo. the only relationship between a politically motivated attack and belgium likely is that trade unions were considered to be communist splinter cells planning to sabotage domestic industry, hence supporting the enemy in the war effort. as flanders was a major staging area in WW1, the relationship between the conquest of belgium and supporting the enemy through domestic industrial action, as many saw it at that time in history seems a logical conclusion. There's no other explanation for why someone affiliated with a group publicly decried as german spies(factually or not) would torture another and claim the act was in support of belgium in the year of 1917. sources indicate that it was a politically motivated attack, not a racially motivated attack. however there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that the W Tate Brady was present during the attack. i'm trying not to expand too much with things that dont seem relevant to the article.

In regards to the issue raised concerning the roofs catching fire, I've clearly illustrated that the hollow, unpartitioned walls of balloon-framed houses easily allow fire to spread within the internal wall cavity and that the prevalence of wooden roofing of a particular type in this era easily allows fire to spread via ember attack from rooftop to rooftop with documented cases of this occurring. so the statement that what Franklin observed can and does happen even in the absence of aerial bombardment is the issue? so it can just be divided into two lines such as, "franklin observed fire spreading from rooftop to rooftop which led him to the conclusion that they must be under attack by air." and, "fires have been observed spreading from rooftop to rooftop in the absence of aerial bombardment." and then I can just move over the content to the balloon-framing article and ember attack articles where relevant?

175.36.196.38 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made edits to the areas of which there has been criticism, the eye witness account subheading and tate brady paragraph. Can you please check if this conforms to your expectations? 175.36.196.38 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the it need a source or the sky is blue?[edit]

Uninvolved editors' comment is requested.

Black people holding MEK's flags.

Do we need a source saying these black people (probably of African decent) depicted in this picture are non-Iranian? Beside's other things, you can see the woman standing is wearing a cross necklace. Also, it's apparently a common practice for MEK to bring non-Iranian people to their gatherings ([3], [4], [5], [6]). This source especially says how African people are brought to the MEK's gatherings. --Mhhossein talk 09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a source is needed. While I would agree that it is quite likely that the people in your photo are not Iranians, we can not be positive. There are people of African-Iranian heritage. This isn’t a “sky is blue” situation. Blueboar (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Blueboar: Yes, there are Afro-Iranians. But, as far as I know, those depicted in this picture never look like Afro-Iranians and the probability of having Christian Afro-Iranians supporting MEK is quite zero. --Mhhossein talk 11:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
And just what is an Afro-Iranian supposed to look like? Do they all have only one eye or something? Seriously, you can not tell someone’s nationality from a photo (and even ethnicity is difficult). As for the fact that one person is wearing a cross... does not tell us anything, since there are Christians from Iran (not a lot, mind you, but they do exist). Finally, have you considered the possibility that the photo may show a mix of people (both Iranians AND non-Iranians)? We can not say for sure who these people are without a source. There are too many possibilities. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Let me question your partiality having asked such a question. I'm not sure if this is a serious question, but Afro-Iranians are usually not that black and certainly have 2 eyes (See their photos). You're closing your eyes on a reliable source saying "The MEK flew a group of 25 Africans from Sudan and Eritrea to New York from their homes in Ottowa, Canada," showing that it's highly possible to have repeated the same scenario. Of course one's nationality or ethnicity is possibly determinable seeing his/her photo. I'm seeing your effort at considering very much unlike possibilities into considerations. It's very hard to believe that those in the picture are 11 christian Afro-Iranians participating a MEK gathering in Paris!!! --Mhhossein talk 13:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It's clearly an OR issue. Consider how many loops of logic you are asking people to jump through to understand there's no way these could be non-Iranian black people in the photo. Far far far too many, requiring background information and inductive reasoning. We can say, from the photo alone, they are black people, and there are a number of them, and they are holding signs, but that's about all WP editors can state before it delves into OR requiring sourcing. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Afro-Iranians exist. As do African American-Iranians - e.g. T. J. Houshmandzadeh. And even if they did not exist - this would be OR to say they are not Iranian - and also OR to say they were paid.Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
[Note: the above comment is made by an involved party] --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Who said they don't exist? --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Less involved than yourself - and the question (or subsequent participation) here is not neutrally phrased. Prior discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#"Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" image.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
you can quote, if you attribute it inline. from your reference, for example, you could say,  "Kourosh Kalhour, spokesman for an iranian pro-monarchist group was quoted as stating, “Basically, what you see is “rent-a-crowd,” " but then it becomes immediately obvious to the reader that they could be just saying that because they're the opposition. if you look for an opposing quote, criticism of the pro-monarchist group's protest or commentary of some sort from the day giving each parties perspective then it's more likely to not be challenged. part of wikipedia is stating facts and letting others decide what to make of the facts. for the photo, you would need to find a photograph that is opensource or you own the copyright for it, publish it at wikipedia and have a source of a reliable news organisation or author or institution criticising the race of people in the photo. I dont think you will be able to manage this so its probably best to leave the photo alone.

the reference you give states that the sudanese people in the photograph were there to support the group and promote awareness of similar human rights abuses in Dafur.[7]

175.36.196.38 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As an involved editor,@Masem: such demonstrations (which were organized by MEK) have occurred opposite the Headquarters of the United Nations in 2013 and according to farda report, the presence of non-Iranian has been considerable. You use Google to translate the Persian text saying there were plenty of non-Iranians in the demonstration. You can see black people, too.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
When a picture is provided and readers are asked to draw conclusions, it is implicit OR. If the lead picture for "United States" was "Obese American eating a hamburger," for example, it would provide a narrative. You do not mention btw what article the picture is used for or what text it is supposed to illustrate. If the demonstration and the make up of demonstrators is discussed, it could be appropriate. Incidentally, the picture is sourced to VOA and says, "African-American citizens with People's Mujahedin of Iran banners in demonstrations in front of headquarters of the United Nations, New York City." If you can demonstrate that the picture and caption come from them and that VOA is a reliable source, you could use that rather than a personal interpretation of the image. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for an editor’s citations[edit]

Is it possible to find all citations added to articles by an editor?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Illustrating an interactive work's complex plot?[edit]

Over the weekend Netflix released Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, an interactive movie that the viewer can make choices. As noted by third-party RSes, the story has a complex branching pathway, but as long as you make the same choices as someone else, you'll end up following the same narrative as a similar viewer doing the same.

For purposes of illustration, it would be nice to show a segment of this complex branching pathways, which we can make in a free image using simple shapes/etc. (Non-wikipedian versions of the flow chart have started looking like: [8]). The OR question becomes, based on all that we know about how the movie works, is a WPian making such a simplified flow chart by following the paths in the interactive movie considered OR? I would consider it "no" in the same way that normal plot summaries are not OR with implicit sourcing to the work itself to support it. This would only allow a rather high-level flow chart (it is claimed there's > 1 trillion paths for the work , and multiple endings, but for a WPian to track that all themselves would definitely be diving into OR) but that's all I'd want to see, enough to show that some choices loop back to previous scenes, etc, all broad details easily confirmed in third-party sources. --Masem (t) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is OR and so are plot summaries based on readings or viewings or original material. One issue in no original research is, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Most readers want to know the information that reliable sources find important, and expect that articles cover them and don't want to read information that reliable sources give little or no coverage.
Bear in mind that readers are not necessarily fans.
TFD (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOR allows for basic descriptions of a plot to be cited to primary sources (ie, the work itself). Any analysis of the plot, however, requires secondary sources. The problem with a flow chart is that it falls between a “description” of the plot, and an “analysis” of it. It isn’t a clear case of one or the other. However, because it does involve at least some degree of analysis, I would say it should be avoided. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are we allowed say a writer "agrees" with another writer if they don't mention each other?[edit]

Black Panther (film) currently includes the following text:

James Wilt, writing for Canadian Dimension, stated that "at its core, Black Panther contains a fundamentally reactionary understanding of black liberation that blatantly advocates respectability politics over revolution" allowing "white folks such as myself to feel extremely comfortable watching it". Wilt found the scene where Ross is portrayed as "the hero" for shooting down the Wakandan ships to be the film's way of endorsing the crushing of armed revolt against oppression. Wilt also felt that Killmonger was given the "most hideous traits imaginable [making] the only major African-American character and agitator for revolution a manic killer consumed by rage and violence". Russell Rickford of Africa is a Country agreed with Wilt's assessment of Killmonger, whose role as a character is "to discredit radical internationalism".

The thing is, Rickford doesn't mention Wilt, or Canadian Dimension, at all, and given the length of both pieces and the fact that they were apparently published one day apart, it seems highly unlikely that Rickford was even aware of Wilt's article before he sat down to write his own essay on a similar topic -- presumably they both just came to similar conclusions from watching the film when it was released a few days earlier.

Is this kind of writing okay? I'm honestly not sure; I wouldn't write it myself, but I'm not convinced enough to unilaterally change it, so I'm here for a second (and maybe third, fourth, etc...) opinion.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Best not to say they "agree" in these circumstances, unless the point is really specific (like say a disputed date). And here it's not even clear they are making exactly the same point. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I would also not use ageeed either since that implies that Rickford is specifically referencing Wilt and there is nothing in the cited paragraph to indicate that is the case.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It is OR and actually inaccurate since it implies Rickford had mentioned Wilt. I would like to see an introduction to the section that outlines the various approaches taken to analysis of the film. TFD (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree is mildly inaccurate (and ORish). Adding a "likewise" connector may still be OR (but may well fall under the WP:BLUE exception), would be accurate, and improve readability. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "agrees" suggests that the writer used this word, so not appropriate word IMO. "Likewise" is good. Alternatively, "... has the same view..." or "... reaches the same conclusion..." are good too (and not OR if it is obvious from the text quoted or cited, like it is not OR to say that 2+2=4). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As others have said, "agree" would imply that Rickford is commenting something Wilt said, hence using "agree" would be improper and original research. In situations like this it is uncontroversial to replace "agree" with something neutral, for instance "NN said ..." or "NN wrote ..." Politrukki (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Lists of works by year of entry into the public domain[edit]

A set of articles have been created to list works that have entered the public domain, broken down by year of entry.

By and large, none of these articles cite sources for the claims made that each of the works listed (a) has entered the public domain and (b) did so in the year indicated.

While entry into the public domain is determined by copyright law, and a given Wikipedia editor may be aware of some or all of the provisions behind entry into the public domain, and may be aware of the factors used in making that determination, it appears to me that making the determination here based on facts obtained elsewhere that a given work has entered the public domain is an example of original research, very much the sort that is covered by WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH. I believe that the commentary at WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTSYNTH makes it even more clear that the provisions regarding original research and synthesis are applicable here.

It even seems to me that, in making the determination of public domain status for arbitrary works on its own, Wikipedia is essentially issuing a legal opinion on each of them (as opposed to reporting a legal opinion expressed in a reliable source), which Wikipedia shouldn't be doing. I don't know whether this is particularly worrisome to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it could be, as I don't know whether a disclaimer like the one at Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer is a guarantee of immunity from prosecution in all countries of the world.

I approached the situation by tagging each of the articles with {{original research}} tags. User:Leutha removed them all. In a follow-up discussion that I initiated on Leutha's talk page (to which User:Ymblanter contributed one comment), the beginning of which is here and the remainder of which (after an archiving of the talk page) is here. Leutha directed me to WP:NOTOR and WP:NOTSYNTH but, for reasons that I set forth at length, I found that they supported strongly my view that this is very much a situation that WP:SYNTH is meant to cover. I've received no response since I expressed that finding almost three days ago.

Taking into account the contents of the aforementioned discussion, in which I even laid out concerns about possible sources of inaccuracy in reaching these conclusions about entry into the public domain, in addition to their originality, I wondered whether anyone here would chime in on the following questions:

  • Should these lists be tagged for original research?
  • Is the original research content of these articles so great, and would resolving the OR issue be so laborious (because every work would have to be sourced separately), that every work without a citation should be removed, and, if no works, or practically no works, are left, then the lists should be deleted?

Largoplazo (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I would agree these should be sourced, not only to avoid the OR described above, but as well as to provide a factor of notability. We're not including all works that possibly entered the PD, but those noted by sources (eg [9] for this year). Otherwise, these can start to become unmaintainable for non-notable works. --Masem (t) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • These lists aren't about works, but authors of works. The list you link to is fundamentally different, and only concerned with works coming into PD under the wacky US system. Our pages are all about death +x years. As far as I can see there is almost no overlap. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis in the lead of Friendship paradox[edit]

At the mathematical article Friendship paradox an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper (a tangential work about self-enhancement) in the lead description diff.

By way of explanation the Friendship paradox is "mathematically people have fewer friends then their friend have" (a paradox of the law of averages) and the Zuckerman/Jost paper is one of the many applications of the Friendship paradox that says "people think they have more friends than their friends do (and we know this because we compared our results to the figures in the Friendship paradox)" (A study of self-enhancement/Illusory superiority).

Since it was not part of the lead paragraph description of the Friendship paradox I moved it to "See also" as topic Illusory superiority (what all secondary sources say Zuckerman/Jost is about) and the editor reverted it with the rational Zuckerman/Jost was the "explanation for why this should be called a paradox". Also claim made again hereherehere.

This seems to be a classical WP:SYNTH A (Friendship paradox primary source paper) +B (Zuckerman/Jost primary source paper mentioning the Friendship paradox) = C (Zuckerman/Jost explains or is the paradox) - claim not made by either source and there is no secondary source that even comes close to making this claim.

Did another cleanup cleanup moving Zuckerman/Jost to the body of the article and summarized it and the (9 or 10?) other papers describing applications of the Friendship paradox in the lead but the editor keeps reverting the cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I have tried without success to figure out what the OP is talking about. For example, the very first diff is purported to show where "an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper", but in fact both sides of the diff show the Z/J paper used the same way. EEng 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    This issue has been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Friendship paradox with FoBW failing to persuade others their that their objections have any merit. Note also that FoBW simultaneously escalated this issue to here and WP:AN3, a clear case of forum shopping. And (per EEng's comment above) the writing quality of FoBW's "cleanup" of the article is no more clear than his report here; that lack of clarity is the primary reason for my reverts, as I have made clear both in my edit summaries and on my own talk. FoBW has repeatedly failed to understand the point of mentioning ZJ on friendship paradox, which is to explain in part why the effect is counter to many people's intuitions. Instead FoBW has replaced that information by text describing the experiments ZJ performed. This replacement is completely missing the point, completely off-topic to the article, and actually is problematic from the point of view of NORN since it described primary research without secondary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    the very first diff is purported to show where "an editor inserted a primary sourced Zuckerman/Jost paper", but in fact both sides of the diff show the Z/J paper used the same way"" - original edit had Z/J as (a secondary source?) sourcing the description of the FP. The edit changed Z/J to source for an added sentence implying "people thinking they have more friends" described what the paradox was. "ZJ on friendship paradox, which is to explain in part why the effect is counter to many people's intuitions" - and there it is not implied - and it is incorrect. FP is counter to the mathmatical law that everyone should have an average number of friends, it has nothing to do with "people's intuitions". As for "forum shopping", WP:AN3 is not a forum, its where you report edit warring when it happens. This noticeboard is about OR, a different issue. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am completely unable to comprehend what you're saying (and just so you know, I have a degree in applied mathematics and statistics) – is there really a mathmatical law that everyone should have an average number of friends? While we're here, do not ever silently modify your post like this [10] after others have responded. EEng 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently you can't read edit summaries or understand what "fix wrong diff" means. As for the rest, try Law of large numbers. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments; people shouldn't have to go through the page history to discover that you changed your post after others have responded to it. If you think the law of large numbers implies that everyone should have an average number of friends, then I think it's time for this thread to be closed. EEng 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    "may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided" doesn't mean ever and context was fix and it didn't deprive anyone of anything. Otherwise, don't play dumb about the methodology of statistical sampling, both papers are very clear about how they go about it. Secondary sources are also very clear about what each study covers (insert sound of crickets coming from the direction of the editors who are supposed to be supplying secondary sources to prove this is not WP:SYNTH). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    You seem unable to benefit from the guidance of those with more knowledge and experience. Please be my guest and have the last word. EEng 01:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add some flavor to this discussion. The changes on the Friendship Paradox page grew out of a dispute on the List of Common Misconceptions page. FOBW has engaged several editors there and attempted to remove sections, including the Friendship Paradox. When his initial critique of notability was rejected he then attempted to make a removal based on similar logic to what I think he is arguing here. When I pointed out that there was no such distinction on the host page, he began attempting to make edits there that I think would put him in a position to make changes on the Misconceptions page. This is clearly just my opinion, but I think it best explains why the writing is so difficult to understand. I believe the editor is attempting to force a narrow interpretation into a wider discussion to suit other preferences. Squatch347 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be pointed out that the entry at List of common misconceptions was a copy/paste of the lead of Friendship paradox, so, yeah, the OR was copied over as well so its probably a matter of cleaning up that OR first. It has not been a one sided debate, another editor (Ahecht) has also pointed out that calling a mathematical paradox a "misconception" is illogical [11][12]. Asking editors to explain the logic of the entry or supply reliable sources has been an exercise in listening to the crickets. The (confusion?) over this stems from a paper on a mathematical paradox and a paper on self-enhancement being SYNTH'ed together in a claim that one showing an under-count in friends and one showing an over estimation in friends is the "paradox". Its not, the "paradox" is a mathematical paradox stated in the first paper "the mean number of friends of friends is always greater than the mean number of friends of individuals". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is really getting crazy. The friendship "paradox" is no more an actual mathematical paradox than is the "birthday paradox". If you don't understand that then you're not competent to participate in discussions about this article. EEng 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources disagree with you[13]. You can quibble over what level a paradox rises to but the one thing Feld's paper is not is a paper on self-enhancement (so cue the "One of these things is not like the other" song). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the source you just linked. Please quote the sentence which disagrees with me i.e. which confirms that the friendship paradox is an actual mathematical paradox. EEng 18:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible SYNTH problem due to translation at Adele Spitzeder[edit]

Okay, here is my problem: The article on Adele Spitzeder mostly relies on German sources, many of which use the German word "Schneeballsystem" to refer to Spitzeder's business practices. Unlike in English, in German Ponzi scheme (one person defrauding all people) and pyramid scheme (one person asking people to defraud other people) are usually used synonymously. Hence many dictionaries, such as LEO, Linguee, Langenscheidt and BEOLingus will offer both terms as potential English translations. A couple of German sources attribute the first such schemes to Spitzeder, which would be a major point of interest. However, the English-language sources I can find all more or less confirm that she ran a "ponzi scheme" (see [14], [15], [16], [17]) but none that she was necessarily the first to do so. Based on this, it's clear to me that "Ponzi scheme" is the correct translation for "Schneeballsystem" in this instance. So is it a SYNTH violation to use "ponzi scheme" in the article to cite a German source using the word "Schneeballsystem"? And by extension, can I use a German source using the word "Schneeballsystem" to verify that she ran the first ponzi scheme? Regards SoWhy 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)