Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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. (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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

SYNTH, NPOV

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

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

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

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

Sources

1. Is it SYNTH?
2. Is it compliant with NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:19, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Request for Comment

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

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize the graph that shows "cases deaths and recoveries", the "case fatality rate" in a graph, both, or none, or an "epidemic curve" per WP:MEDRS WP:OR and WP:CALC --Almaty (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Habesha peoples

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Habesha peoples#Synthesis, POV. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR

Art Deco article appears to have large amount of original research and synthesis. For example, let us start with first paragraph in Cubist influence. It says Cubism appeared between 1907 and 1912 influencing development of Art Deco, source quoted makes no mention of Art Deco. Third paragraph in same section explains what Art Deco will be in future, but quotes source from 1912. There is no chance that source could know what Art Deco will be. Moving on to the Influence section, again entire paragraph quotes source from 1905. I think there is considerable number of sources that make no mention of Art Deco at all and are used in the article with original research and synthesis, considerable number of text has no source at all. Sauvahge (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it OR to state that novel Coronavirus can be transmitted by common communion cup?

• Article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Greece
• Talk Page: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Greece#"Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitter from a common communion cup."
• Claim: "Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitted from a common communion cup."
• Source: Manangan, Lilia P.; Sehulster, Lynne M.; Chiarello, Linda; Simonds, Dawn N.; Jarvis, William R. (1998). "Risk of Infectious Disease Transmission from a Common Communion Cup". American Journal of Infection Control. Elsevier BV. 26 (5): 538–539. doi:10.1016/s0196-6553(98)70029-x. ISSN 0196-6553.

Note that the debate came into light in Greece recently, when Church decided to carry on with Eucharist amidst the Coronovirus pandemic. Thanks, Cinadon36 15:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not OR... just overly specific to the point of irrelevance. The virus can be transmitted by sharing ANY drinking vessel. There is nothing unique about chalices in this regard. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely the point, Blueboar. I would agree with your point, but in this case we have POV-pushing masked by the reference to the religious cup, to make a point that the cup used in the holy communion is unsafe, thus to insert an editor's POV that the Church of Greece engages in unsafe practices, without any RS making this specific connection. It is SYNTH, because the OP wants to add that to the religious debate section of the article to make a WP:POINT by using his own research about the cup in the holy communion that the practices of the Church of Greece are unsafe when using the cup during holy communion, without other RS making this specific reference. This is OR, SYNTH and POV-pushing all in one. Dr. K. 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: the point was that the alcohol in the communion cup does not protect you, not the (yes, so obvious it's irrelevant) point that sharing cups shares germs. But Cinadon36 while I appreciate this, especially in light of the erm... statement... above, frankly continuing to reason about this point is just not worth it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hey @Cinadon36:, why do not you use the source I posted on the article's talk page? I know you want to improve the article further, in similar fashion as you have improved many other articles. But in this case I agree with Calthinus that wasting time with a small detail is not worth it. After all, the article already makes it obvious that the said religious practices are dangerous in the context of the current pandemic, and that is made even more obvious by the source I posted. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. This fixation with the cup is baffling. To make matters worse, we also have the spoon of the holy communion, the gold plating of the cup and the spoon, the bread, the hands of the priest etc.. It would be madness to add a source attesting to the viral transmission properties of each object of the holy communion. Why stop at the cup? Dr. K. 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess. But I'm trying to think of other ocassions where large numbers of strangers share a cup (or spoon, or whatever) or all touch the hands of some dude or whatever. I mean intimates will share a cup -- like a couple at restaurant or home etc. -- but these people are intimates; they have many points where they can transmit a disease. I'm sure that some large families share cups etc. without washing, but again: intimates. I don't think that cups are shared between strangers or acquaintences at wine or food tastings. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess meet-n-greets where a politician goes thru a crowd shaking hands... but aren't these things being cut way back or cancelled?

So, I'm just saying, isn't this kind of an unusual behavior? If there was, let's say, a competitive league where people competed to see how many strangers' hands they could shake in an hour, and that wasn't cancelled, would that not be noteworthy? Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is and it has been condemned and it is covered in the article. What we are discussing here is an unusual fixation on the cup as a means of transmission although all the other modes like the hands of the priest, the spoon, the gold plating of the cup and the spoon etc. are not covered. Just the cup, and even then the cup is covered in an unrelated paper to covid19. Dr. K. 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The fixation on the cup is not "unusual", it is because the GOC statement literally said "there is absolutely no possibility of contracting the disease from the holy cup", and the spoon is because health experts have specifically criticized that aspect as well (i.e. see this piece from four hours ago [[1]] concerning the same controversy arising in the GOC in Australia). Religious authorities afaik have not talked about the gold plating, but inasmuch as the communion cup contains the theoretically infallible "blood and body of Christ"... there is a conflict. And no the paper is not going to protect you from all the minuscule respiratory droplets, no "staying home if you're sick" does not suffice for protecting others when we're dealing with a virus with an asymptomatic but contagious period not uncommonly lasting as long as 14 days.--Calthinus (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Some users are incapable of supporting their opinion, without attacking other users. Dr.K. above, constructed a strawman. He thinks my POV is to attack Greek Church and thus he resists my edits with various excuses. He is misrepresenting my argument. But regardless my POV or his POV (to support Greek Church) the matter is whether the claim that "Coronavirus can be transmitted by common communion cup" is an Original Thought. If it is, maybe I deserve a medical award for my Original Thinking in such a crucial domain. Dr.K. also claims that the addition is an unusual fixation, which is not, it is crystal clear that viruses can be transmitted through common cup per academic source given. If there are other pathways of transmission (through bread etc) it is irrelevant to the discussion, since at the article we are discussing the debate on common cup. Ktrimi991, I am not very willing to use your source, since it is not the very best available. I prefer academic sources than newspapers. But I think it is a last line solution. Cinadon36 08:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Some users are incapable of supporting their opinion, without attacking other users. And then in typical weasel fashion you obliviously attack me repeatedly in you statement repeating the points I have discredited multiple times before. I will not repeat them again to rebut you useless argument. You cannot be prosecutor of the cup argument by bringing a source from 1998 to a recent 2020 coronavirus pandemic article, WP:CHERRYPICKING from that paper from 1998 while ignoring its flaws, to present a point that other editors here told you is irrelevant, since all cups are transmitters, not only the holy cup, as Blueboar told you, and, as Ktrimi told you, his source says an equivalent thing without the stench of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK. WP:POINT, and WP:POV. I repeat again: if others follow your POV, COATRACK etc., methodology, they will be bringing into this specialist article about Greece rebuttals from unrelated sources not only for the holy cup but also for the bread of the holy communion, the gold-plated spoon and its antiviral properties and/or transmissibility problems, the hands of the priest, etc.. It will be a COATRACKING SYNTH OR party. Also, your peculiar POV that newspapers are not RS but any flawed and irrelevant paper from 1998 making a useless argument against the holy cup, rather than all cups, is better, is something you have done multiple times before and you were successfully rebutted before on wiki. This is an ongoing problem but it is yours and not mine. Ktrimi's source is both relevant and excellent. You should learn from him. And make no mistake: Ktrimi's source is not mere RS. It also carries the verdict of professional medical bodies in Greece expressing their concerns regarding the stance of the GOC. The opinion of these bodies is both expert and relevant to the present crisis in Greece, unlike your homemade OR SYNTH CHERRYPICK POV job using the irrelevant 1998 source. Dr. K. 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Wikilawering as well. Not that it was not expected. Trying to initiate a battle among users so no third users jump in. Happened many times before, I wont bite the above nonsense and fallacious arguments. As for " flawed and irrelevant paper from 1998" --> just for laughs. Highlights that you are unfamiliar with RS. As for Ktrimi991, I have learned a lot from him, as he opposed many POV edits of yours, but this time it is different. His source fails WP:MEDRS, so it can not support the claim that "viruses can be transmitted through the common cup". It can only yield an attributed statement that wont be WP VOICE, as needed. Respecting someone, does not mean that I have to share the same opinion. Cinadon36 14:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that you have revealed yourself as having no WP:CLUE or reading skills, since you have not addressed any of the valid points that I raised and also managed to misread or misrepresent what I wrote about Ktrimi, I can finally rest my case. As far as your silly WP:NPA of wikilawyering, just talking to you has been a monumental WP:WASTEOFTIME as usual. Finally, your comment Highlights that you are unfamiliar with RS., is a base WP:NPA that crosses over to rank stupidity. I have nothing to prove to you about RS. Dr. K. 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It s you that you are totally Clueless, saying that the article by CDC is flawned. If my comment crossed the rank of stupidity, it might match yours. You have to prove that the article is "flawed and irrelevant", as you, incorrectly and hilariously, claimed. Cinadon36 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You have resorted to copying my arguments and adopting them as your replies. I guess you have put your own mind in a state of suspension. Please try to think on your own. Dr. K. 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed to explain why the sentence is RS or irrelevant to the topic.Cinadon36 17:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The only failure here is yours. You have persistently failed to listen to multiple editors on this thread, including me. Dr. K. 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to reply when the proposed text in the article is not provided and neither is the source. It appears the information is intended to be use as part of an implicit criticism of a church. However any criticism must be sourced and cannot be implied, otherwise it violates OR. We can't say for example that Donald Trump was born in New York, the home of Son of Sam. While it is true, we would be making an implicit statement not supported by sources. TFD (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces From an editorial standpoint, I can get what you're trying to say (a single hanging sentence to say that was not great, there were other sources that would have been better... etc.), but the criticism was outright and explicit in the main part of the section. Cinadon's version: Despite the coronavirus outbreak, the Church of Greece announced that the Holy Communion, in which churchgoers eat pieces of bread soaked in wine from the same chalice, will continue as a practice.[30] The Holy Synod stated that the Holy Communion "cannot be the cause of the spread of illness", with Metropolitan Seraphim saying that the wine was without blemish because it represented the blood and body of Christ, and that "whoever attends Holy Communion is approaching God, who has the power to heal".[30] Attendance is especially high in the coming holiday season among the most elderly Greeks.[31] <PARA> The Church's stance prompted bitter criticism from the opposition Syriza party, with former health minister Pavlos Polakis asking "How can we halt gatherings such as the carnival, and allow people in churches to drink out of the same spoon?" and former leftist prime minister Alexis Tsipras blasting the church stance as "anti-scientific, anachronistic and a threat to public health".[32] ... Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitter from a common communion cup.[34] . There are better ways to say that, but that was the result of the ongoing fight about the section ........ Annnnnnnnd while we're talking "implicit" criticism, what about the implicit "praise"/"defence"? We have In a statement in early March 2020, the governing Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece encouraged sick worshippers to "temporarily stay away from mass gatherings and avoid kisses and embraces."[41] -- well I did not remove this because it would be seen as POV-pushing but note that although this is indeed a case of the Church doing the right thing (placed in a section of criticism so as to mitigate it) this is also straying from the crux of the issue: which is criticism of the specific Church policy of proceeding with the Holy Communion as traditionally done (one priest, wine from same cup, same spoon) and issuing statements about the cup/wine being safe because it's Jesus blood/body, which are condemned as irresponsible by lefty politicians/medical professionals/scientists (the topic is not if people who already know they are sick should kiss/embrace/come to church -- no one has disputed they should not). now waiting to be attacked, meep --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether this section was weight for inclusion, but if it did this is how I would enter it. Start by mentioning the criticism by Tsipras, mentioning who he is, i.e., the former left-wing PM. Then provide the church's response. Paraphrase rather than use direct quotes. Mention the church response. Don't juxtapose different statements by them to imply they are being hypocritical. If Tsipras says they are of course then you can mention that. But if he didn't remember that Tsipras is a skilled politician who doesn't need our help in defending his positions. TFD (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea but I'm not sure it's DUE to elevate the critique by Tsipras above that of Polakis, or OENGE, or "scientists and doctors", or the right-wing-you-know-national-leader-boss-guy Mitsotakis as you see here [[2]]. Although I think I might have been the one to originally introduce Tsipras as a lefty, I'm not sure that his left-ness is even relevant here especially after Mitsotakis' statement.--Calthinus (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, there is a recent article at Efsyn, (Efsyn is a RS greek newspaper), that tells that coronavirus can be transmitted through the common cup. That article cites the 1998 academic article. So there is someone that tells "Donald Trump was born in New York, the home of Son of Sam." Cinadon36 06:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion has gone beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I think we are all agreed that it is NOT original research to mention that the virus can be transmitted via the communion cup (plenty of sources have noted this... both in Greek and in English). The question is whether it is Due weight to mention it... and there is a separate noticeboard for discussing that issue. May I suggest that you take it to the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's not the issue, Blueboar. If there are sources about the cup in Greek or in English mentioning the cup in conjunction with the 2020 pandemic it is ok to mention this in the article. The issue here is if a source from 1998 can be used to add this to the 2020 pandemic article in the absence of any modern sources making that connection specifically about the Greek church. Dr. K. 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be WP:SYNTH. Khirurg (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The text as it was with the source that was used is unquestionably original research / synthesis. This is a very straightforward call. As mentioned, there are many aspects to communion in which an infection could hypothetically be transmitted. The details of the risk are going to vary by practice, by the specific disease in question, and by the demographics of the congregation. This sounds complicated, and one might wonder how to know what matters most, and how great the risk is. But the proper approach for Wikipedia editors is very simple: let the sources do that part, and simply report what they say. Fishing for information from 22 years ago to rebut a claim made today about a disease that didn't exist two years ago is completely inappropriate. When an editor writes "infectious diseases can be transmitted from a common communion cup.[34]" in an article about covid19, they are implying that source [34] is relevant to covid19. If it is not, then it is the editor drawing a conclusion, not the source. And finally, what makes this whole debate ridiculous to begin with is that there is no absence of sources that are about covid19 and make similar points. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is utterly unacceptable to use a 1998 article as a reference regarding a novel coronavirus discovered in December, 2019. Focusing on a specific religious ritual seems like undue weight to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Why is it unacceptable to use a 1998 article? Note that the discussion sparked from the novel coranavirus, but it is not about Coronaviruses, the debate is whether viruses or bacteria can be transmitted through the Cup. Church's opinion is that no bacteria/viruses can be transmitted, while 1998 article states something different.Cinadon36 15:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Someguy1221 Coronaviruses did existed 22 years ago, and we as wikipedians can not dismiss a study that has been published. Moreover, when the author is not presenting his work, but the work of other scientists. As I have said earlier, there is a newspaper article that makes the connection [3] between COVID19 and CCC, and it is citing the 1998 American Journal of Infection Control's article Cinadon36 07:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is original research for any editor to write that this novel virus is the same in this specific regard as the earlier viruses described in the literature, and therefore sources published before December, 2019 should be excluded from this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The author of the newspaper article made the conclusion. You get to cite the newspaper. You don't get to cite the newspaper's sources if they would not be allowed otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I have also read the 1998 article and it practically says the same thing, which is also, Common Sense. Anyway, I will wait for a while to see if there are no objections, and I will add the sentence citing the newspaper article. Cinadon36 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, "common sense" is that time works in only one direction in this particular universe. I assume that it's the same where you are? --Calton | Talk 09:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328, especially after I saw the proposal to use the article on the Greek newspaper efsyn as a trojan to refer to the cup. Focusing on the cup to the exclusion of the many other components of the holy communion would be UNDUE, especially in this case, because the proposed source in the newspaper article by efsyn is actually criticising the 1998 research paper in several aspects. We cannot use that article and focus on the cup without also mentioning the extensive criticism of the paper for that 1998 article and its comments viz. the cup transmissibility. Doing so will overwhelm the religious section of the Greek pandemic article on wiki and it will defacto convert it to a controversy section about the cup, making it confusing and very much WP:UNDUE. This is the link to the proposed source about the cup sentence. You can use Google translate to evaluate its findings. Dr. K. 12:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Heh. Well this paragraph is pretty impressively non-neutral. "Prompted bitter criticism," "blasting the church stance"...? I mean really? Are we writing for an encyclopedia or for TMZ? GMG^talk 13:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent find GMG. It actually shows the OP adding the CREDENTIAL intensifier "medical doctor" to a critic of the Greek Church so as to enhance his criticism against GOC. The intensifier did not exist in the source. Dr. K. 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• For your convenience, I add here, in quote form, the findings of the Greek newspaper as translated by Google:

Specifically, the bibliography referred to is a 480-word public letter from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), written in 1998. The publication is not a product of a research process, but the adoption of earlier studies. It even contains bibliographical references of 1943 and 1967 1 . Its main reference is based on earlier research, in which a sample of 681 people of various ages was examined as to whether or not they attended church meetings and whether or not they received a "divine congregation" 2 .

Although the results are clear regarding the transport of germs through the sacred vessels, the researchers did not find an increased risk of transmission to the population using the implements of the holly communion. But this study has a number of methodological problems.

Initially, the period of sampling is not clearly stated. Viruses also have seasonal characteristics, with winter living conditions favoring transmission due to closer contact indoors and their poor ventilation. Still, personal hygiene becomes more neglected than in the summer months.

Researchers also did not study how rituals take place. The Catholics do not associate with the forceps from the common glass / mug and the priest places the unleavened unleavened bread, Ostia, in the mouth of the faithful, thereby reducing exposure to saliva. Finally, the investigation was conducted at a time when there was no outbreak or epidemic in the US. Even the spread of "bird flu" was then limited to Asia, Africa and Europe.

.

To me, it looks like a very flawed paper to base any short of conclusions about the cup, especially in this Greece-related article and about the Greek Church rituals. Dr. K. 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You as a Wikipedian can not disqualify a scientific document, based on your reasoning. You ought to refer to another scientific publication in order to dismiss it. Cinadon36 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is statements like this that make me question your ability to understand what I wrote. Dr. K. 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems that there is a lack of understanding of scientific papers.Cinadon36 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's worse than that. You don't seem able to understand what people are telling you. Dr. K. 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the blue link a link to your personal user page? Because the claim reflects your comments. Calthinus explained many times why you are super wrong. You should watch his words, you might learn something Cinadon36 16:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed to read even Calthinus's words just below. He said to you he is involved in this as you are. Why do you choose to listen only to an involved editor, and not to many uninvolved editors who disagree with you? Dr. K. 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You failed once more to understand the comment you are citing. Calthinus is clear that it is not Synth, but yet, you still point at his comment! Cinadon36 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You just verified that you are unable to understand the written word. Dr. K. 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Cinadon36 As I said before -- this isn't worth it. Yes the 1998 article is RS but others are right that using it for the 2020 epidemic is not really correct (is it SYNTH? No, juxtaposition, but that doesn't make it good to use). Blueboar is also correct that the better place would have been the NPOV board, though frankly it is better st this point if all four invested parties-- me, you, Khi, DK -- simply disengage from the section. News about the matter is all over the place now that Mitsotakis stepped in and then the same issue cropped up in Australia -- eventually others may rewrite the section, and if so that rewrite will be done without being poisoned by independent editor conflicts, which are disruptive. It is what it is. --Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Calthinus, gland to hear that is not SYNTH. The term Synth was used as a a part of wikilawyerism, I suppose. Cinadon36 15:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you see the comments of the other editors telling you it is blatant OR and SYNTH? Dr. K. 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have seen users explaining that it is not SYNTH, did you missed that? Cinadon36 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are deep in WP:IDHT and WP:HORSE territory at this point. Drop the stick. Enough already. Khirurg (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Rfc for Markovian Parallax Denigrate

I recently created a RfC for Markovian Parallax Denigrate. Please give your input. Veverve (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_March_16#File:The_black_hammer.gif . Does including the Book Cover on a book that Ezra Taft Benson wrote the foreword to constitute OR? Epachamo (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)