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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

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

Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot.

Include large RCT as primary research in text (RFC)[edit]

We have a discussion whether a large clinical trial should be mentioned in the flavan-3-ol text, even though it is primary research. Any comments to reach a consensus would be appreciated. There is no dispute whether the study is primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion.

Clam chowdah's discussion of "Big Pharma" at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief[edit]

Despite being reverted by three users, Clam chowdah has been waging a slow-motion edit war at President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) since January to insert a lengthy paragraph about the U.S. government "defend[ing] the patents of Big Pharma" (softened to "defend[ing] the patents of multinational drug companies" in more recent revisions), citing three sources ([1], [2], [3]) that long predate PEPFAR and consequently do not mention the program. In his edit summaries, Clam chowdah has defended the disputed content, saying it "Added very important context so people can find the true heroes." Two contributors, one of them an IP, countered that Clam chowdah's proposed addition "was clearly biased, unsourced, and didn't belong in the article" and violated "WP:OR/WP:SYNTH," sentiments that I agree with and have also expressed (e.g., "RV POV-pushing WP:OR edits about 'big pharma' using sources that do not even discuss PEPFAR"). Despite this, Clam chowdah—who has previously been warned about non-constructive editing and violations of WP:UNDUE at 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign ([4], [5], [6]) has refused to listen to these concerns, dismissing them as the "Orwellian propaganda" of "Bush lackey" (i.e., me) and an accomplice who is "most likely affiliated with Bush fan". By my count, Clam chowdah has now reinstated this content six times since the initial edits ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Because the PEPFAR article clearly seems to need additional eyes, and since Clam chowdah acknowledges that his sources do not address PEPFAR directly but instead provide "very important context so people can find the true heroes" (which sounds a lot like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to me), I decided to take the dispute to this noticeboard. To wit: Is this valid background information that may be useful to readers interested in PEPFAR or simply a textbook case of original research and synthesis by an inexperienced contributor? All feedback is appreciated!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This official UN report has everything I added for context AND mentions PEPFAR. Furthermore, all of this can be backed up by my original footnote links which are contemporaneous news articles. Read pages 21-23 and you will see it has the exact same facts I found in contemporaneous news articles. The first paragraph now is BS and none of it can be found in contemporaneous news articles. Fauci and Tommy Thompson visiting Africa in 2002 is the first mention of the Bush administration focusing on the crisis in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/MDG6Report_en.pdf

Here are the direct quotes from the UN officials that make clear Western governments were protecting patents and thus blocking distribution of HIV medication:

The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices. And donÕt forget this was also the time when world leaders were negotiating protection of intellectual property rights at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Any concession could open the floodgates for exceptions. US$ 100 So when Brazil and Thailand started manufacturing generic antiretroviral medicines they did something very smart: they revealed that the pills were relatively low-cost to make. This took the wind out of industry claims, and it opened the door for UNAIDS to start negotiations with companies to bring down prices

Meanwhile, activists were getting creative, too. The Treatment Action Campaign sued the government of South Africa to force the country to make antiretroviral medicines available, and protesters were pushing for changes to patent protection to bring prices down. MICHEL: I cannot give enough credit to AIDS activists. Activists used all avenues available to keep pressure on everyone. The push on WTO to recognize the limits of patent protection in a health crisis led to TRIPS [the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] flexibilities for compulsory licensing and waivers.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on the patents and WTO: A discussion of ways to overcome this obstacle began at a WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar in November 2001. WTO ministers recognized that countries with insufficient or no pharmaceutical-manufacturing capacities could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing, and they instructed the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem before the end of 2002. WTO member nations, however, were unable to agree upon the terms under which poor countries could import generic drugs.

Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby, expressed concern about the ability of generics producers to export drugs that the pharmaceutical companies had spent millions of dollars to develop. Sale of AIDS drugs in developed countries is a multimillion-dollar industry for companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Merck and Co., and Roche Holding AG.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228482/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We aren't here to right great wrongs nor to conduct original research nor string together sources to make a point not found in the sources. Also we do not call people liars in edit summaries no matter how much you dislike the former President and his administration.Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Slywriter just called Jeffrey Sachs a liar. You need to read my links instead of bullying me!! Please use the Talk page!! You 3 are bullies that are trying to trip me up so you can ban me because editing Wikipedia makes you feel powerful. You 3 are no better than a middle school bully picking on a new kid. This is like the Stanford Prison Experiment and I notice it when websites allow top commenters to moderate comment sections and the power goes to their heads. You guys won’t even respond to me because you just end up showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills…pathetic! Clam chowdah (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in that report on those pages that call out anything close to what you are saying. That drug prices are high and that USAIDS has tried to work with companies to bring down prices is there, but that's nothing about the US Gov protecting Big Pharma. So this is 100% original research and cannot be added. --Masem (t) 02:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^this guy just wrote USAIDS—it is UNAIDS!! USAIDS doesn’t exist. Here is the quote from UN—“The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices.” And here is the quote from JCI via NIH-“Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research—those are quotes!! I didn’t write an essay!! The links are right there, how can you not see that!?! It is getting added because it is what happened in 2000-2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So one guy thinks I wrote an essay when I copy and pasted from official UN and NIH documents…and another guy thinks he read USAIDS when it is obviously UNAIDS?? Am I on Candid Camera??? Seriously?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I apologize to Times, but I did make the changes he advised me to make. But you can see that Times wanted to get a desired outcome here because the first two people to weigh in have misread my contributions because Times wrote such a biased introduction. I want these facts included because they are important and I don’t want my bad behavior to keep them out and so I will take all of your advice to heart…but Times should also be a little more careful because he is coming off as a bully even as I admit my bad behavior and promise to keep it civil going forward. Oh, and a Quartz article I originally linked to used the term “Big Pharma” and I do believe the UN officials’ are relating that “Western hegemony” was keeping life saving medication from poor nations at the turn of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the Quartz article I originally linked to which is backed up by multiple articles published in 2001 by the NYTimes which is what “the article” refers to:

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clam chowdah (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic.[5]

This is currently under History and it’s from a primary source (Decision Points which is Bush’s memoir), shouldn’t it already be deleted???Clam chowdah (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the editor that initially deleted my text edited Lee Harvey Oswald’s article to say he was “accused” of “assassinating” JFK…so that is the individual that started with deleting my work instead of working with me on the Talk page. Thanks to the more experienced editors trying to help me instead of ignoring my links that go to reputable entities and news sources.Clam chowdah (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.htmlClam chowdah (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly carrying a POV and trying to justify original research to include claims not directly made by these sources. This is the classic WP:SYNTH argument that WP does not allow. --Masem (t) 02:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are quotes from Jeffrey Sachs via PBS “original research”?? And how are quotes from Bush’s memoir not a primary source? Does bullying people make you feel powerful??Clam chowdah (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the quotes from Bush's memoir are from a WP:PRIMARY source. Being from a primary source is not reason enough to exclude properly attributed information on an otherwise notable topic. They are certainly not lies, unless you believe Wikipedia is misrepresenting the two sources and the information is not found in those sources. Slywriter (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Jeffrey Sachs interview from Frontline right above this!! You can’t square his recollection with Rice’s recollection. And Kofi Annan never heard Bush or Rice discuss PEPFAR prior to shortly before the 2003 State of the Union—do you believe Sachs and Annan or Bush and Rice?? And remember—Sachs and Annan’s actions were recorded by the news media in real time while Bush’s version of events was recorded in 2010 when his memoir was published. You can’t be this gullible!?!Clam chowdah (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about being gullible, it is that we as editors cannot engages in the speculation and interpretation of sources like this. Sources have to be pretty direct to say that the US Govt is defending the patents of Big Pharma. You are trying to link many disparate pieces of factual information (what some people like Sachs have said) to create a picture that doesn't exist in the sources. That's original research.

You also have continued to try to add this at PEPFAR, which is edit warning and you should be fully aware that if you continue to do so, you will be blocked for that. Masem (t) 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/Clam chowdah (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you 3 mean girls seem intent on pushing racist White Savior narrative from a primary source that is contradicted by a Nobel Peace prize winner and Harvard economist?!? You 3 are awful, I’m done trying to reason with you when you’ve gotten everything wrong here and you refuse read links and refuse to use the Talk page to come to a consensus and you follow the lead of a JFK conspiracy theorist.Clam chowdah (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are incapable of discussing the issue in a collegial manner, your behavior is now at WP:ANI. Civility is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extrasolar planet counts[edit]

We have the template {{Extrasolar planet counts}}, that displays the following text inside of an article

As of 1 July 2022, there are 5,108 confirmed exoplanets in 3,779 planetary systems, with 826 systems having more than one planet.^[1]

The idea is to have a nice and centralized template with the current number of known exoplanets, so that when that number increases it is updated just once and all related articles are instantly updated, avoiding the risk of leaving one out during a manual mass update and then that article would be outdated.

The problem is the source: it is a catalog of such planets. We say that there are (as of May 31, 2022) 5017 exoplanets because that's the number of items in the catalog. Is this a valid way to reference this? Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, the template is saying in Wikipedia's voice that there are a definite number of confirmed exoplanets. Confirmed by whom? Other sites have higher numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, it would be better to have the template say "As of 1 May 2022, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia reports 5,017 confirmed exoplanets in 3,694 planetary systems, with 822 systems having more than one planet." It is now maintained by a team mostly associated with the Paris Observatory, but still lists Jean Schneider as the author, so the reference is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question was actually if the raw number of entries in a catalog was a valid reference for a claim like this one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, the number of catalog entries is fine to use. That sort of thing is not considered a "raw number" which usually means data needing more processing. However the template needs to say which database the numbers come from as I suggested above. The three main exoplanet databases use different criteria for inclusion so report different numbers. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about "lists" instead of "reports?" It is important that the encyclopedia does not claim to list all confirmed exoplanets. Since there is a delay between the confirmation of a new exoplanet and its listing in the encyclopedia, it will usually not include all of them. TFD (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental number[edit]

I've noticed that the topic of transcendental numbers tends to attract OR regarding specific mathematical constants, specifically regarding their transcendance.

• At Laplace limit, a user on 23 January 2022 claimed to prove that this constant is transcendental, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. The proof was correct, but no reliable source makes this claim, so I reverted it on February 5.
• Lambert W function claimed to prove transcendence for ceratin values, including that which gives the omega constant, using the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem. I was unable to find reliable sources which explicitly make this assertion, particularly for the omega constant.
• In the case of Cahen's constant, there is a reliable source that proves transcendence, but the sources used did not support the claimed calculation of the irrationality measure of Cahen's constant.

I have recovered as many references as I could fin the main list from the main article. Some more eyes are appreciated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I have fairly briefly looked at the example you give for Laplace limit. Maybe I've missed something really simple in looking so briefly, but as far as I can see the editor just pulls the equation out of the air. I agree with the proof from that point on, but I don't see where that equation comes from. Can you clarify that? JBW (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Oh dear. I did indeed miss something really obvious in looking so briefly. 😳 I saw that the edit you linked to added that equation, but I didn't notice it was just a second copy of an equation which was already in the article. However, does the article provide a citation for that equation? JBW (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the "references" in the article aren't on line, and I can't check them, but one of the "external links" does give that equation. Sorry to have taken up your time for nothing. However, I'll reformulate that link as a reference. JBW (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at Beergate – Relationship to Partygate[edit]

At Talk:Beergate#Relationship to Partygate an effort at verifiable source based research has been dismissed by DeFacto as "total and shameless OR" on the basis of their "entirely plausible interpretation of the events, from the reading of a broad selection of RS accounts and analyses", but in response to a request for links to these other sources for verification, they said "the onus is on you to to get a policy-based consensus to support the synthesis you keep trying to add, not on me to supply sources saying that it's an OR conclusion." Input from editors interested in OR issues will be much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 17:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland[edit]

The article in mention would be List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland. The page is created by ErrgoProxy. Errgo created a list of universities that according to him, are unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland. In the page, it is explained that the list was made by cross-referencing data provided by State official sites Swissuniversities, Akkreditierungsrat, and Studyprogrammes. In my opinion, this violates WP:OR as cross-referencing data and then inferring or gaining conclusion from said data is original research, as there are no sources that state that the universities listed are indeed unaccredited. I will also bring Curb Safe Charmer and PierreLsn, which are also involved editors on this matter.

I have discussed this with another user, Equyl, that have similar concerns, as shown in here, where I explained that inferring information from sources are original research, and editors are not allowed to engage in that. User Errgo exhibited similar behavior with user Equyl.

In short, input is requested if methods that are used by Errgo to list universities on the article is WP:OR or not. Thank you and have a good day to all. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Errgo created a list of universities that according to him, are unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland"

Wrong, it is a list of unaccredited higher education institutions. There is a big difference. Three webpages as sources by the Ministry of Education in Switzerland reference this;

https://www.swissuniversities.ch/en/topics/studying/accredited-swiss-higher-education-institutions

https://akkreditierungsrat.ch/akkreditierungsentscheide/institutionelle-akkreditierung/

https://studyprogrammes.ch/en

Under the guiding principle from SAC these institution do not hold the HEdA-u designation AAQ to be granted using the word University legally,and be a recognised higher education institution;

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/sbfi/en/home/ihe/higher-education/coordination-higher-education-sector/protection-and-recognition-of-the-titles.html

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/webshop/2016/titelschutz-hs.pdf.download.pdf/titelschutz-hs.pdf

https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/content/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/2017/12/titel-privater-institutionen.pdf

The HEdA came into effect on 1 January 2015. With HEdA, the designations “university“, “university of applied sciences” or “university of teacher education” and derived designations such as “university college” or “UAS college” can only be used by public or private institutions that have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Council. This also applies to designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. Other designations such as “academy”, “school”, “institute”, etc. remain unreserved and do not require accreditation.

"Private institutions based in Switzerland that are not accredited under the HEdA may only issue

private degrees. Such degrees:

- generally do not confer any entitlement upon the holder to gain direct access to a higher level

of studies within Switzerland's public higher education sector;

- generally may not be used by the holder to carry out a profession that is regulated in Switzerland;

- may be used by the holder to carry out an unregulated profession; appreciation of the value of

private degrees is left up to employers.

Generally speaking, there are no international agreements protecting the value of private degrees; in

all cases, it is up to the national authorities in the host country to decide whether to recognise foreign

qualifications.

Private institutions are able to legitimately carry out their activities in Switzerland by virtue of the principle

of economic freedom. They may also use a name that is not subject to an accreditation requirement.

However, this does not mean that the Swiss authorities recognise the studies offered, nor the

examinations passed nor the qualifications issued." ..i think at this point it is self explanatory.

Now should you need more information on legality and consequences that can rise from implying these institutions are as you claim recognised Universities i would be very much interested in seeing your sources for these claims SunDawn. Before such i would also urge you to read the Swiss law in making such implication under the UGW. That is in small notion referenced in the SBFI page for titleschutz.

I would also express claiming the tag WP:OR on the article as you did without providing what exactly your problem with it is and trying to help out as senior editor was more then welcome, but it never came to this. Also i have to notice the similar insights from users SunDawn and PierreLsn in the remarks about the page.

I've approached and ask for sources for the claims yet neither one was willing to provide or to help out. Not only that i was reported for violation and any type of communication from them to me was non existent, untill i decided to also comply and state my reasons the article is well sourced and the WP:OR tag is clashing with the WP:V and WP:RS tag's.

"In the page, it is explained that the list was made by cross-referencing data provided by State official sites Swissuniversities, Akkreditierungsrat, and Studyprogrammes. In my opinion, this violates WP:OR as cross-referencing data and then inferring or gaining conclusion from said data is original research, as there are no sources that state that the universities listed are indeed unaccredited."

There is no conclusion if a list from the Government/Ministry of education (three separated sites) clearly states providies detailed list of recognised higher education institutions and Universities. It is a simple fact checking, which wikipedia is all about.

User PierreLsn was asked to stop editing the article and express his sources for his claims (he never provided any source, the talk page for the article provides the information) In the same manner big chuncks of the article from sources in the Swiss Ministry of Education and Law providing the information were removed, and said they are not valid sources. After i asked him to stop/citated my sources and reverted back his changes he proceded on reporting me and the article, untill a second user Functionalist also said the sources and the pages have a clear design and the list is well sourced. ErrgoProxy (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrgoProxy: You have reliable sources that list which institutions are accredited, but no reliable sources that list which institutions are not accredited. The list you've created is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is against Wikipedia policy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the link you provided ""A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article." as you said they are reliable sources. WP:SYNTHNOT

As it is also described if authors reach a consensu an article can be given approval, if it is well sourced and easy to verify. "but no reliable sources that list which institutions are not accredited" so a Government based list of all the recognised institutions by the Swiss can not be used to source educational institutions in Switzerland and a list of not recognised institutions with a clear tag private, unaccredited in higher education business. ErrgoProxy (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Functionist and DGG: pinging involved editors (Functionist has been involved on the article talk page, and DGG accepted the draft) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight this is WP:SYNTH, but it should be considered whether this falls into the same category as WP:CALC, which says that routine calculations are allowed. For this to have a chance, the government sites would have to clearly state that they are listing all accredited institutions. Also, even if "unaccredited" is SYTH, "not listed as accredited" is not SYNTH. So a rewording of the definition of the list could help. Zero^talk 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks SunDawn for the ping.

1) Title of page List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland is wrong and is a key issue (WP:NOR). Main source (Swissuniversities) states the correct title should refer to "(Un-)Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*" (meaning that only the institutions listed on the Swissuniversities source page have the right to call themselves Swiss Universities (or Swiss University of Applied Sciences, etc..).

2) The word (Un-)Accredited used singularly as a blanket term is misleading, confusing & wrong (WP:NOR too):

• (a) an institution can be accredited ;
• (b) programs can be accredited ;
• (c) degrees/diplomas can be accredited.

Same word, different meanings. Therefore, Unaccredited or List of unaccredited higher education institutions or even as Zero puts it, Not listed as accredited is not acceptable in Switzerland as per source. Only possible formulation would be Not listed as Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*, if the ultimate goal of this page is to list all institutions that are not Universities (is that the encyclopedic value?). Does this actually make sense (is it sustainable?) since institutions, programs and/or degrees can also be accredited cross-borders by other countries?

3) Some examples of issues with blanket usage (or WP:NOR usage maybe) of non-qualified words 'Accredited/Unaccredited'. Counting on Duck test to avoid too much wording:

• Listing IMD Business School an unaccredited higher education institution page is ridiculous. But of course it can be listed as not Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (in effect, IMD is not a Swiss University, it's a Business School).
• Webster University Geneva is a fully registered and active Swiss entity as was pointed out by Eatingsnowballs.^[1] It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* - in effect, it is not a Swiss University. But it is delivering US state-accredited Diplomas, under a USA university umbrella. Now as to know if transferring from one year in Webster University Geneva to a next in a Swiss (public) University will work, that's another question (probably not..). This is the reason some organizations specialize in this field only: evaluating accreditations and advising about transferability and academic recognition of schools/programs/degrees that might have similar names (such as 'university' or 'masters'), but do not have the same cursus or "value". See full articles on WES, AES or ECE.
• LRG University of Applied Sciences linked with Glion Institute of Higher Education was listed at Swissuniversities as Swiss University of Applied Science,^[2][3][4] - hence the title of the Wikipedia page (which is in need of serious update btw). Until that Swiss OAQ accreditation was dropped. They now use different international/professional accreditations for their school/programs/degrees. It is one of the best Hotel/Business Schools in the world. Sure, it is not an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University), but is definitely cannot be listed as an Unaccredited Higher Education Institution in Switzerland, which it should be if we are following this page's logic.
• IMI International Management Institute Switzerland is referenced as delivering a Dual-Degree program, awarding a state-accredited degrees from Manchester Metropolitan University. So again, not a Swiss University. But a student gets awarded a recognized University Degree, because programs are accredited.
• |IFAGE delivers professionally recognized and accredited diplomas, such as the highly regarded Federal Brevet of Accounting (the Swiss CPA), highly recognized in Switzerland. Commonly, this is Higher Education (since there is no definition of what those words are exactly in Switzerland, aside from what you want to make of them). It would be a heresy to say that someone holding the Federal Accounting Brevet went to an "Unaccredited Institution" or followed an "Unaccredited Program" or received an "Unaccredited Degree".

4) Aside from the list, a very high percentage of content is original research, fully unsourced - or source doesn't state what is written.

5) Ref by SunDawn of this [interaction] with Equyl, subsequent immediate creation of similar user ErrgoProxy and many very specifics edits (this or that institution is not a "higher education institution"), it might be inferred that there is strong advocacy or WP:COI on the part of ErrgoProxy, and that a WP:SPI might be warranted. I am writing this down for proper submission in due course.

PierreLsn (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"1) Title of page List of unaccredited higher education institutions in Switzerland is wrong and is a key issue (WP:NOR). Main source (Swissuniversities) states the correct title should refer to "(Un-)Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA*" (meaning as per source that the institutions listed have the right to call themselves Swiss Universities (or Swiss University of Applied Sciences, etc..)."

The main source to go for these things is from SBFI the official ministry of education webpage, btw the link states no thing as you expressed.

What we are looking is this;

The accreditation system for the Swiss higher education sector (tertiary level A according to ISCED-

97 classification) is regulated as follows:

- The HEdA came into effect on 1 January 2015. With HEdA, the designations “university“, “university

of applied sciences” or “university of teacher education” and derived designations such

as “university college” or “UAS college” can only be used by public or private institutions that

have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Council. This also applies to

designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. Other designations such as

“academy”, “school”, “institute”, etc. remain unreserved and do not require accreditation. In

case where institutions do not fall within the scope of HEdA, it is up to the cantons to prepare

corresponding guidelines and establish additional rules and recognition procedures for these

institutions. The degrees of tier-one universities, universities of applied sciences and universities

of teacher education” are protected under corresponding legislation.

https://www.ge.ch/en/authorizations-open-and-operate-private-schools

According to the Federal act on the Funding and Coordination of the Higher Education Sector (HEdA), the designations "university", "university of applied Sciences" or "university of teacher education" and derived designations such as "university college" or "UAS college" can only be used by private institutions that have been institutionally accredited by the Swiss Agency for accreditation and quality assurance (AAQ). This also applies to designations in languages other than Swiss national languages. For further information : http://www.aaq.ch

So no they can not use the word University ( in 18/26 Cantonts) if they are a Swiss registered business for higher education, as was with Swiss Managmenet Center who named changed from SMC University, more so the changes to the academic law in Switzerland in 2023, will state all Institutions that who do not posses by SAC accreditation will not be any longer allowed to use these words, given the Cantons will no longer be encharge for these things.

These type of behavior are actually protected in 18 out of 26 Cantons, and on National level in Switzerland;

in the provided on top pdf file; https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/webshop/2016/titelschutz-hs.pdf.download.pdf/titelschutz-hs.pdf

"Cantonal level

It is the will of lawmakers that the titles of higher education qualifications be protected by the sponsors themselves, i.e. generally speaking, the host cantons (see explanations in Chapter 2). Each canton of-fers a very different level of protection of the titles of higher education qualifications awarded on its territory; in some cases, the titles are afforded protection under general cantonal criminal law and in other cases under special legislation. In the pages that follow, we provide a list of the various cantonal provisions that protect the titles of higher education qualifications: in cases where, multiple layers of protection exist, we shall first indicate cantonal criminal law provisions and then the corresponding provisions of special legislation on education and/or rules established by the higher education institu-tions themselves.

Along this line, we can also mention the special transitional rules applying to qualifications awarded by Swiss universities of applied sciences, where federally recognised UAS Bachelor’s, Master’s or Mas-ter of Advanced Studies (MAS) qualifications remain protected under the terms of previous legislation (as stipulated in Art. 78 para. 1 HEdA).14 In addition, UAS degrees awarded under previous legislation continue to be protected under federal law.15 With UAS qualifications no longer afforded protection under federal law, the HEdA gives the cantons the option of quickly taking action: Art. 79 HEdA stipu-lates that for a period of five years following commencement of HEdA, cantonal governments may issue ordinances for the purpose of making adjustments to their legislation on universities of applied sciences, provided these adjustments are absolutely necessary (see Art. 79 HEdA).

In individual cantonal regulations, the general concept of ‘academic degree’ is protected. This concept only covers titles of formally acquired higher education qualifications, i.e. fundamental academic de-grees such as the Lizenziate or Diplome under the previous legislative framework and the Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD degrees under the new one.16 In contrast, qualifications awarded in non-formal ad-vanced studies programmes, i.e. the Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS), the Diploma of Advanced Studies (DAS) and the Master of Advanced Studies (MAS)/Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA) are not academic degrees."

As you can see academic degrees are protected by law and have institutional accreditation by the Swiss Government, while the unaccredited higher education institions do not. Now the so called profesional degrees are not protected and regulated. (from the Cantons, untill 2023)

1."Webster University Geneva" - was removed by me from the list as the referenced page/history can detest to that. Cause it should not be for the reasons you also came to conclusion. Thank you for pointing that out.

2."Listing IMD Business School " it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees.

3."IMI International Management Institute Switzerland is referenced as delivering a Dual-Degree program, awarding a state-accredited degrees from Manchester Metropolitan University. So again, not a Swiss University. But a student gets awarded a recognized University Degree, because programs are accredited." - i am trying to see the point here? IMI is still not a recognised Institution in Switzerland and can not provide valid degrees on it's own. So it should be on the list, having proxy like partnership by the degrees being awarded by recognised Institution does not change the fact they are still not recognised in Switzerland. Hence why the score for them on the German registry page ANABIN says "not recognised" and holds the score -H.

We can go cover each case base by base i do not mind. But it seems to me some of the users do not want this page to be out and are on a witch-hunt instead of providing valid sources, and helping out new users on Wikipedia with their experience. I was nothing but reported, ignored or abused by said (two accounts) users as a new user, without any offering hand to help, cooperate or guide on the first basis. To which i am kind shocked for a fact checking website that people will go spend this much energy instead on improving the pages and new user experience. ErrgoProxy (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave other users comment on this, I am having trouble following. Quick note nevertheless, you say "The main source to go for these things is from SBFI the official ministry of education webpage", please do that and find the following statement in the referenced page: "The list of currently recognised or accredited Swiss higher education institutions under the terms of HEdA can be found on the website of the Swiss Conference of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions (swissuniversities)".^[5] I am happy to discuss in a structured and sourced manner, with no WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ErrgoProxy:, please reply properly and make the efforts to include hyperlinks and other small things (specific references) that will help us to understand the situation better. Given your responses, it's scattered everywhere like broken glass. The English is often incomprehensible, but most importantly, your response on this page discussing original research proves a point in itself!

You need to use simple but straightforward English. You created the page, but this doesn't mean you own it. I suggest you discuss things in small paragraphs for each issue.

Also, I asked you not to remove the Original Research tag because a reader could make a wrong decision from the content given and have really bad consequences. There is no harm in having the Original Research tag. It was added by a Senior Editor – This was such a simple request! I had simply asked you to not remove the Original Research tag without discussing it on the talk page. You literally insulted me and the original adder @SunDawn: Is there a rush or a mission to complete? Once the consensus is reached, we can decide whether to remove the tag or not.

Coming to your links and messages, I believe they are simply ranting without solid reasoning. You have written vague answers and included government links/content without being specific. Even these answers are similar to Original Research. Also, when I added Webster University Geneva. There was a strong source that was enough for its inclusion. You didn't bother to research and blatantly removed my edit.

You said ""Listing IMD Business School" it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees." – I have no clue what you are referring to. This answer is simply vague and not precise enough for me to understand what role I play here. Source, please? Eatingsnowballs (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise if it seem to you like that. I do agree with a lot of the edits you made to the page. And as it seem there is a whole lot of ground to cover with this subject, and bouncing back from one editor user experience and the chain of events gets chaotic. ( you also pointed to me a valid concern with AACSB membership requirements, and reminded me how AACSB is not upholding their very own rules set for granting memberships, read the link on their page.) https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/membership

"An “appropriate governing body” is defined as a governmental entity (or one authorized by a governmental entity) with authority to approve degrees offered by higher educational organizations (e.g. Ministry of Education); OR The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate governmental, non-governmental, or professional organizations within the home country of operation."

PAY GOOD attention to the wording the business schools on the list do not hold any higher education recognition from the government nor any accreditation for ACADEMIC degrees in Switzerland. This was a very good catch by you. And a reminder how dire and serious situation this is in Switzerland. But nevertheless membership has been granted to a good part on the list. These things as you said are serious and a whole lot of ground is left to cover if people can follow up the discussion. Now i can not also comment of ongoing investigation in Switzerland for some things, but the authorities have been made aware on what exactly some of the listed schools are doing. Hence i was in contact/inquiring before i made the page by some of the people for now couple of months regarding these things, and explained by them what is and can be done, and changes for 2023.

Now lets take it one by one;

"Listing IMD Business School" it has a special reference on the page as noted by users like Eatingsnowballs, Functionalist who also made corrections on it. Given that it awards only MBA degrees."

..what i mean was the edition to the table and the links you provided by the school on your side of things, and the reference in the editing message of the page. Now with Functionalist i had a discusion on what exactly to do with IMD and should it even be on the page, since it is indeed controversial, the talk page is evidence to the problem as we discused. And i also still do not know if it should be on the list, in my opinion i would rather remove it for two explicit reasons.

1. It does not fit the profile of what the other Business schools on the list are doing (offering multiple degrees for undergraduate, postgraduate,dual degrees programs etc)

2. It is only in the business of offering MBA degrees in professional sense and holding triple accreditation.

Regarding Webster, it is also a special case as with IMD, Webster is an American recognised (+H) University offering explicitly to their abroad campuses American degrees, not dual type degrees as you expressed. And they do not imply or mislead in any sense, they straight out say these degrees are usable in American and the verification process actually for EU will pass on them by most of Ministries of Education in Europe (i had it checked by a Public University). So why is it different from the rest on the list you should be asking your self, it is not self awarded (lets say Geneva Business School) who is offering "private degrees", who is registered in Switzerland and does not hold any higher education accreditation to award valid degrees, but as it is called by the Swiss Government "private degrees". I do hope i have not lost you in the discussion.

In essence this is why the unaccredited tag is simple yet those who are following the wording is clear on what is going on.

Not the next concern is what to do with the hospitality and hotel type of schools on the page, my recommendation is to split the list and make special notes about them. So make two list addressing 1.Business schools and 2.Hospitality/Hotel Institution this is why i asked Functionalist to prvodie more insight since i do not know about legality of these degrees. I also asked Piere to add new paragraphs and explain it better off instead of removing sources for Scholarships/Visa for business schools.

As for the original research tag, i do not mind having it. But i also so a lot of the pages concering Switzerland are outdated, some of them are still referencing OAQ or CAMPUS type of organizations. QAQ was replaced by AAQ,BACK IN 2015!! ErrgoProxy (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrgoProxy Unfortunately you are again responding fully with Original Research and no sources.

1) The one cited source, AACSB membership, is editorialized while attributing the conclusions to another user. Source says: "(...)The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate (...) professional organizations within the home country of operation."^[6] You are explaining the exact contrary over lines and lines of WP:OR.

2) IMD does not only deliver MBAs, it has an Master in Science program.^[7] It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). You say "It does not fit the profile". Can you point me to the source describing that profile of yours?

3) Webster University Geneva is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). It therefore does belong in a potential list of Unaccredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* following your own criteria which you are defending edit after edit. Or are we back to WP:OR about this particular institution?

4) You are asking about legal difference between a business school and a hotel school and suggesting recommendations. Can you point to a single source mentioning a legal/educational status difference between the two?

You claim an organisation is "not upholding their very own rules", some institutions "do not imply or mislead in any sense", this or that institution "does not fit the profile". I would point you to WP:Advocacy and WP:COI, and respectfully ask you to respond point by point while following Wikipedia's community rules, starting maybe with WP:NPOV. Most of what I addressed here was covered in my initial entry in this Noticeboard, which you chose not to address in an appropriate way. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" is editorialized while attributing the conclusions to another user."

What is the points of your's? over here

"Source says: "(...)The organization demonstrates approval of academic programs through recognition by one or more appropriate (...) professional organizations within the home country of operation." You are explaining the exact contrary over lines and lines of WP:OR."

Not sure i again follow your logic as with the swissuniversities you linked, was nothing more then a link to a list of universities that you somehow claim states some facts about naming in Switzerland and had no express wording, which is plain wrong conclusion, yet i linked you that valid sources for context. Which according to you where hard to follow.

1.Regarding the AACSB everyone can go and read the whole page entry that clearly states the guidelines for membership requirements. For which again your conclusion is wrong. As i stated these listed schools do not have higher education recognition in respected country they are open for business.

"2) IMD does not only deliver MBAs, it has an Master in Science program. It is not listed as an Accredited Swiss Higher Education Institutions according to HEdA* (i.e. it is not a Swiss University). You say "It does not fit the profile". Can you point me to the source describing that profile of yours?"

As i have expressed i would remove IMD from the said list. But i could also explain it on how and why it can be. They do not award dual degree programs, but they are offering programs from recognised Institution in Switzerland for Master's. So in essence like Webster. While other type of Institutions are offering duel type of programs, and in some case long dead partnerships.

This is what i have also witnessed in the past two months, these Wiki pages are filled with wrong,misleading,outdated,selfsourced information from these business schools. As i expreseed concerns with CAMPUS OAQ pages regarding official Swiss organizations that are defunct, are used by some of these schools. A new page should be made to reference the appropriate AAQ.

"4) You are asking about legal difference between a business school and a hotel school and suggesting recommendations. Can you point to a single source mentioning a legal/educational status difference between the two?"

So in the end i get to be bullied "WP:Advocacy and WP:COI" by you instead of reading the said pages with understanding? or how it is to hard to follow. No thank you, would be a waste of my time to try and provide evidence to you. As the past attempts demonstrate.

"You claim an organisation is "not upholding their very own rules", some institutions "do not imply or mislead in any sense", this or that institution "does not fit the profile". I would point you to WP:Advocacy and WP:COI, and respectfully ask you to respond point by point while following Wikipedia's community rules, starting maybe with WP:NPOV. Most of what I addressed here was covered in my initial entry in this Noticeboard, which you chose not to address in an appropriate way. Thanks. PierreLsn (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"

Again you are doing now exactly the same thing as you accused me off. Quoting my sentences out of context. More so no evidence that states anything contrary on your end. And as i expressed my concern in 2. post ,some of the two users are on some path to rather attack me personally then to read with understanding the provided sources, and provide evidence or facts for their claims. You, reported me and the page, blocked me and for two weeks on the said page stop responding to the talk page to deal with the problems. ErrgoProxy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right @ErrgoProxy. When you say "No thank you, would be a waste of my time to try and provide evidence to you." it speaks volumes. PierreLsn (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC). (btw, I updated the OAQ page, it was simply renamed to AAQ.^[8] )[reply]

• Clarifying the status of Swiss higher education institutions has been a problem for years. Many of the articles on non-accredited institutions have blurred the difference between a license to operate and actual accreditation. Similarly, many of the articles have made unjustified claims for affiliation, and there have been institutions in other countries prepared to make affiliations and grant degrees without proper consideration---see University of Wales. This is not unique to switzerland--there have been institutions in the US pretending that a business license equals accreditation (some California institutions have been particularly deceptive). India is a particularly difficult situation, because some of the affiliations and degree-granting authorization are real and responsible, and some not) The discussion above has greatly clarified the situation; I now understand the details much more clearly. This is however not the ideal place for the discussion; I suggest that an explanation of the various statuses be presented properly as a WP: page. (Alternatively, an article with good sources describing the situation might be justified. ) A mere list can not do justice to the variations. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, do you have a suggestion on this particular case? Because there are clear differences: Some editors think that the list is wholly WP:OR and should not be removed, while some think that the list is not WP:OR. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory original research[edit]

The bolded part of the first paragraph, The theory claims that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory. seems to be unsupported by any of the citations (Jamin (2014) "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right" pp. 84–103, Richardson & Copsey (2015) "'Cultural-Marxism' and the British National Party: a transnational discourse" in Cultures of Post-War British Fascism, and Jeffries (2016), Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School pp. 6–11.), any source in the article, or, as far as I am aware, any source in existence anywhere. I started a discussion on the talk page a week ago, where nobody has been able to provide a source in support of this claim. Again, all we need here is a source that says "the conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory" or words to that effect. I cannot find such a source. Input is appreciated.  Tewdar  09:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources stating implicitly and explicitly that the conspiracy theory (aka a planned take over) is misrepresenting the liberal values of the 1960s.

Here for instance is Jason Wilson of the guardian:

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think. Source

Here is Charles Mudede from The Stranger:

Anyone with a basic (and not complex) grasp of the history of French or continental intellectual developments at the end of the 20th century is very aware of the fact that the classical Marxism that crashed in the 1960s (during the Trente Glorieuses—1945 to 1975—the Keynesian response and solution to the real threats of a socialism born in the 19th century) did not take a new and altered form, a Marxism by other means. Source

Here is Joel Looper for ABC Australia:

Here Peterson, slowly pacing behind the podium, stops and moves his hands back and forth as if readying himself to give the air - and the facts that undermine Marxist ideology - a massage. "We can play the same damn game under a new guise," he said. Thus was born what the rightwing blogosphere calls "cultural Marxism." Source

Here is Dr. Joan Braune:

The conspiracy theory not only misrepresents the Frankfurt School’s intellectual project—it also perpetuates centuries-old stereotypes that dehumanize Jews, seeing a controlling hive-mind in the place of individual persons. Source

Here is Rupen Savoulian from Green Left weekly:

For all its various permutations, the basic core of this contemptuous snarl remains as follows: there exists a basic and unscrupulous alliance between feminism, socialism, mass immigration, multiculturalism, indigenous nations, Islam, identity politics, the LGBTI community — essentially anyone despised by the alt-right — to undermine the character of white, Christian nations by moving the arena of struggle from class to culture.

A series of culture wars, it is alleged, is the new tactic of the cultural Marxists, surreptitiously working their way through the educational and cultural institutions to take over the capitalist nations.

The notion that the universities are overwhelmingly staffed by radicals indoctrinating students in the tenets of Marxism is ludicrous.

If universities intended to churn out graduates ideologically committed to the goals of Marxism, then they have failed ignominiously. Capitalism has remained resilient throughout the decades since the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. Source

The lede paragraph is attempting to outline the generally accepted view of the conspiracy theory and its claims. It is a Fringe topic. As you can see, the idea that the conspiracy theory is not an accurate depiction of liberal values is a widespread and generally accepted viewpoint. Naturally, Wikipedia is putting that viewpoint into its own common language. The section in question is not intended as a direct quote, but is the generally understood definition of the conspiracy theory, and as you can see all reliable sources point towards or state explicitly that the conspiracy theory is unsurprisingly, an inaccurate representation. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of these sources justifies the disputed statement as far as I can tell, but I'd be interested to hear what other people think.  Tewdar  11:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely agreed that the Conspiracy theory is a Fringe Theory, and that's how it should be treated on Wikipedia. This has been settled many times over on the talk page, and in various notice boards. You may view the conspiracy theory as disputed, but it's not by any reliable sources. Even this random course description notes the misrepresentation:

>One often reads terms like Cultural Marxism and Neo-Marxism in right-wing tabloids to indicate a leftwing plot to take over the universities by Leftists. However, such a framework grossly misrepresents Marxist literary and cultural criticism. Source

There's really no grounds for claiming that Liberalism is somehow secretly really Marxism, or that The Frankfurt School were attempting to use Liberalism to stage a Marxist take over at all levels of culture. I'm also not sure why you've jumped straight onto the Original Research notice board rather than discussing it on the talk page. But as you say, we'll see what happens here. Maybe we'll need a be slight rewording, but as shown on the talk page today the target of the conspiracy theory is commonly Identity Politics. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the Conspiracy theory is a Fringe Theory, and that's how it should be treated on Wikipedia. This has been settled many times over on the talk page, and in various notice boards. You may view the conspiracy theory as disputed, but it's not by any reliable sources. - perhaps you intended to type this somewhere else? It does not appear to be relevant to this discussion.  Tewdar  11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources stating that implicitly and explicitly that the conspiracy theory (aka a planned take over) is misrepresenting the liberal values of the 1960s - See, this is the problem. You have not read what I said correctly. Consider these three statements:

(a) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values.

(b) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics.

(c) Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory.

Do you see the difference? We need a source that supports (c), not just (a) or (b).  Tewdar  11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracists are misrepresenting liberal values as identity politics created by critical theory."

Well, I mean, Identity Politics is widely acknowledged to have originated with Barbara Smith of the Combahee River Collective, which to my knowledge didn't involve any Critical Theorists. To quote the Identity Politics page:

The term identity politics may have been used in political discourse since at least the 1970s. The first known written appearance of the term is found in the April 1977 statement of the Black feminist socialist group, Combahee River Collective, which was originally printed in 1979's Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, later in Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology, edited by Barbara Smith, a founding member of the Collective, who have been credited with coining the term.

So I think there's some Wiki Lawyering going on here to get around the basic facts of the matter. To be so robotically focused on policy and the semantics of statements, is really antithetical to any pursuit of honesty on the topic. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is OR and SYNTH. And it will be another trip to ANI for you if there's any more talk about Wiki Lawyering or honesty on the topic, when I am simply asking for a source that supports a statement. So far nobody has been able to provide one.  Tewdar 

You have been provided with statements that the conspiracy theory is a misrepresentation of The Frankfurt School's intellectual project. That the conspiracy theory commonly targets identity politics, and that Identity politics was not created by Critical Theory. So perhaps the statement will have to be reworded, if this board sees fit. If that is their choice, I would like suggestions on how best to do so within the bounds of WP:OR, as the current wording has been the consensus for a few years now. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the statement could be broken up with some commas. That might be the quickest solution. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solve original research with commas, eh? And you wonder why I brought this to the noticeboard...  Tewdar  12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, alternatives aren't that hard to write, for example:

"The conspiracy theory misrepresents the Frankfurt School as being responsible for modern progressive movements, Identity Politics and Political Correctness, claiming there's been an intentional subversion of Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with the culturally liberal values of the 1960s."

Of course, I won't be surprised if you take issue with that wording as well. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal appears to accept my argument that the current version cannot be supported by any sources. Also, please AGF. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory, but I do believe in Wikipedia's no OR policy. Why not put your proposal on the talk page and see what others think. It looks better than the current version to me.  Tewdar  12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough to try a rewording, I believe the old version was sufficiently source albeit poorly worded. If rewording it finds approval I'll be happy enough with that outcome too. Anyways, I've added a new section to the talk page as per your suggestion, and wish you well. Good evening. 115.166.11.77 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, your proposed alternative looks acceptable to me, perhaps it is missing a few details that are in the current version but in general it is an improvement and does not contain original research. All the best.  Tewdar  13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Oil Capsule Research[edit]

Lavender_oil#Uses current wording:

• A 2021 meta-analysis included five studies of people with anxiety disorders. All five studies were funded by the manufacturers of the lavender oil capsule used, four of them were conducted by one author of the meta-analysis,[13] and blinding was not clear.[14] In this analysis, an oral 80 mg dose of lavender oil per day was associated with reduced anxiety scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.[13] Due to the limitations of these studies, the effectiveness of using oral lavender oil for treating anxiety remains undetermined.[11]

Where [13] is reference to (von Känel, 2021), [14] is (Generoso, 2017), and [11] is (NCCIH info page, 2020)

• Explanation of this wording choice by its author[13]

• Arguments that this is not WP:OR[14][15][16]

• Arguments that this is WP:OR[17][18][19]

• Current talk-page section: Talk:Lavender_oil#Anti-anxiety_content_and_sources_-_revision

• Background talk-page discussion: Talk:Lavender_oil#RfC_on_adding_more_sources_for_anxiety_treatment_section_and_summarizing_their_findings

Thank you for helping out.

Move debate could use input from ORN participants[edit]

Additional perspectives would be welcome at Talk:Timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the United States Capitol#Requested move 4 July 2022, where I believe "dangerous" and proposed alternative words simply begs for editors to do their own subjective original research. But I don't hang out here and it would be good if experienced eds not involved in the topic might comment. Anyone else is welcome too of course NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty labelling of Antanas Mackevičius in spite of what is said in the sources[edit]

In the WP:Lead of Antanas Mackevičius, there is WP:OR saying he was Polish-Lithuanian. Not a single source that is given at the end of the first sentence says so. In fact, every single one of these five sources at the end say that Antanas Mackevičius was Lithuanian. Those sources are: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]} (The sources that the sfn point to are given here). The faulty description of Polish-Lithuanian was put in by Marcelus.

Furthermore, another two sources^[6][7] that are not in the article right now, both say that Mackevičius was Lithuanian.

Following WP:RS and WP:Verifiability, it is clear that the unsourced WP:OR of Polish-Lithuanian should be removed and replaced with Lithuanian.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is of Polish-Lithuanian identity it doesn't mean he isn't Lithuanian, it only means that he is Lithuanian of Polish ancestry/Polish culture/Polish language. It's all really well described in the article. Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]