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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

British Sri Lankan Tamil article

I have removed quite a lot of original research from the British Sri Lankan Tamil article, largely consisting of material sourced to sources that do not mention British Sri Lankan Tamils. An example is "The second generation have received little attention from scholars, but a lot of information can be gleamed from similar diaspora groups in other racial communities. The Economist noted how westernisation had affected Muslims...", which Lankandude2017 is insisting on restoring to the article. I have started a discussion at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil and would appreciate further input. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that Iryna Harpy has previously expressed similar concerns about this editor's additions to the British Tamil article, and so I've been looking into some of their contributions. I have deleted some unsourced material from Indian diaspora in France. I'd appreciate help looking into their other contributions to see if this is a general problem with their editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Update: Health in Sri Lanka: I've already found WP:OFFTOPIC additions such as the one here, as well as content from promotional sites that do not meet with WP:RS, as well as completely unsourced content here. Considering how few contributions the user has made, all of them smack of WP:NOTHERE. The user's objective is WP:SPA beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've removed the contentious material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible OR at Climate change denial

I've objected a couple of times to a contributors insertions in Climate change denial pm the basis of OR. The discussions are at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Center_for_American_Progress.23Center_for_American_Progress_Action_Fund and Talk:Climate_change_denial#Clarify_Obama_on_climate_change. I don't think we're on the same wavelength at all - anyone like to look and comment? Dmcq (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your response to the second point, about including Obama's statement, is right on track - it is a bit of coatracking/POV to use the quote to give a severity of the climate change issue and then to subsequently talk about climate change deniers.

First point I think you're response has the right reasons - we shouldn't include a think tank's analysis unless it has been noted by independent RSes. A point I bring up but do not attempt to resolve is that thinkprogress.org (the independent site, it seems) is used 160-some times on WP, frequently on BLP pages (including Michelle Obama) so there may be crossed wires if it is an RS. It might be worth establishing this at the RSN. Do note the same report has been added by the same editor at Climate change policy of the United States so you may want to check other contributions. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

ThinkProgress might be okay for some things but I definitely have reservations in this instance because it is reporting on the Center for American Progress which set it up, and as the article on ThinkProgress says 'In 2011, Smith and Kenneth Vogel wrote in Politico that the ThinkProgress reporting staff "isn’t exactly walled off from the Center for American Progress Action Fund message machine, nor does it necessarily keep its distance from liberal groups organizing advocacy campaigns targeting conservatives." ThinkProgress editor Legum said ThinkProgress "is editorially independent of CAP."' I think an independent source is required here. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

True enough. But interesting just trying to see if other sources exist I came across this (done by Vice's own survey), and [1] Mother Jones also points to the CAP study. Just searching news, there is clearly a thread that there is concern that some subsection of Congressmembers have made statements that would categorize them as climate change deniers, and in such a case, we then could say the results of the separate studies. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

They say there are climate change deniers in the Senate and could be used for something like that, but they don't back up the list of characteristics of climate change deniers in the senate that CAP had and don't seem to me to be very relevant to what was being put in. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus. The nonpartisan policy institute and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in a 2017 study of climate change denial in the United States Congress based on Senators' and Representatives' public statements, found 180 Senators and Representatives who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.

References

Contended content in bold. The contended content has no OR issues. The proposed content updates the article with recent developments in the relationship between climate change denial and major US political party, since the Luntz conversion in 2007. Here ThinkProgress is in the role of publisher of the report, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund is in the role of author of the report, or "agency" - this relationship is clearly explained in the two sources, a ThinkProgress article and a Center for American Progress Action Fund press release. The study is a reliable source for its own content with in-text attribution. The contended content is attributed in-text. The content is not in Wikipedia voice; Wikipedia is not saying that all the climate deniers in Congress are Republicans, we are saying that a recent report says so. The article lead already covers organized climate change denial as an American phenomenon; it seems appropriate that Wikipedia's article on climate change denial might be able to point out the significant correlation of the subject with major US political party. Sources need not be neutral; many sources in this article are not neutral on the subject. ECarlisle (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting this stuff in the talk pages instead of actually checking it against the criteria in the policy pages? The Newsweek article does not mention CAP at all, neither does the Lutz interview and the last two are the Center and a strongly linked party of it. So there is no grounds in all that for including what the Center says. Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The above proposed one-sentence update is to a paragraph on the origins of the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party. The current text leaves off at 2006. The proposed addition updates the article to inform readers that the relationship persisted beyond Luntz' personal conversion. Without this update, a reader unfamiliar with the relationship between climate change denial and the Republican Party might take away the impression the Republican Party distanced itself from climate change denial in 2006. What specific policy do you believe is violated by the above proposed update? ECarlisle (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That needs somebody from outside Wikipedia to say it in an article that is relevant to climate change denial and that is in a reliable source. If you were writing a paper then of course you should do what you say in your paper, but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable outside sources and reflect what they have said about a topic. Just try answering the original question I put to you, what would stop some Heartland person sticking in their Institute's idea into that article that no work to mitigate climate change should be done as that would be harmful to the economy?, they could use the exact same type arguments you have used. Sometimes the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater. This is what the WP:OR policy does and why Wikipedia is generally regarded as a trustworthy encyclopedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Try also some totally different topic like floor cleaning to see this in action. I think that artiicle really could do with improving. Floor cleaning is one of the larges if not the larges occupation in the world so it is extremely important - but people just don't seem to write about it in reliable sources. So the article is quite small. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that when looking through a google news search "'climate change denier' congress" is that there is definitely a perception/accusation that we can source that many Congresspeople are CCDs or at least have said statements that would made them CCDs, and specifically towards how these views tend to impact what legislation gets passed or not. Just that we don't have headcounts or the like from that. But if en.wiki's article includes mention of the general concern of some Congresspeople being CCDs, then at that point the CAP study would be completely fine to include to show what one think tank can to as part of its conclusion. Certainly if it was only CAP and ThinkProgress suggesting this idea that some Congresspeople are CCDs, then yeah, we're in FRINGE territory and shouldn't include, but this is definitely not the case. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why should we include them if no reliable source references them? That's the basis of the problem. I've not objections to the references you provided, the Mother Jones one in particular looks good, but I've explained above why none of the ones supplied by ECarlsisle are okay for inclusion. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

With in-text attribution a brief summarization in this article of the Heartland Institute POV on climate change denial may be appropriate, as it is a category leader in the subject of the article; you may propose something if you wish. Similarly, CAP may be used with in-text attribution. Sources need not be neutral. Many sources already in this article are not neutral on the topic. In the US the subject of the article is associated with a major political party, but the article does not say that yet. The CAP report is an perfectly acceptable source with in-text attribution for the conclusion of their own study. If I understand your objection it reads to me as having more to do with RS than OR. ECarlisle (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that something like that could be done if the citations follow Wikipedia's policies. However I was asking about do you think it would be okay to just include a quote cited to the Heartland Institute without any citation to a reliable source showing interest in it? If it was cited properly we could see what an independent party said. Or to include other bits about the Heartland Institute which are cited okay but don't say anything about climate change denial? I'm talking about the Original Research policy here, not about the Neutrality policy. We can't include original research to counter a perceived lack of neutrality. The OR policy plus the WP:Verifiability policy are the ones that requires us to use reliable sources, WP:RS is a guideline on how to select suitable reliable sources. If you really feel that CAP is a reliable source you could ask at WP:RSN but I'm pretty certain they'd agree with me and besides many of the same editors would be here. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Center for American Progress is a reliable source, for its own statements, with in-text attribution! CAP is the best source for questions of climate denial in the US Congress. The Center for American Progress and ThinkProgress are both widely used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. If you have read anything about the number of climate deniers in Congress you have read the Center for American Progress or ThinkProgress or a source that cites them. As I better understand your objection to the proposed content it seems you may be raising RS issues at NORN. Or do you believe it is original research for Wikipedia's article on Climate change denial to mention the noteworthy relationship to major political party in the US? ECarlisle (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better to use books and journal articles, rather than media sources, if we want accuracy and weight. They of course will quote think tanks and presidents and talk show hosts, so it's not like we would lose that, just that we could explain how their views are perceived. TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What does ATA stand for?

Came across the Parallel ATA article and noticed two of the three initials in the term ("AT") were not explained in the lead. The WP:BEGIN/specialised term/context seemed pretty straight forward and there were voluminous reliable secondary sources[2][3][4][5][6] for a basic definition, re: it was "AT-Attachment" with the AT part coming from IBM's "Advanced Technology". I added this and was met with a wall of WP:OWN (with some WP:NPA thrown in) and reverts where two editors put forward they had read many primary source "standards docs" (which they REFBLOATed for good measure) and since "Advanced Technology" never shows in those docs it should not be used in the lead description and any secondary source that gives that as a description is wrong, "we don't need a secondary source" (said twice), "It was never written out as "Advanced Technology Attachment", except in error." (hidden note at article top).

The up and up being "Advanced Technology" is only mentioned in a WP:SYNTH statement under "History and terminology" "The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology",[6] but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology."[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]" - reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Asking for reliable secondary sources proving any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error" has gone nowhere. This refusing to explain 2 letters out of a 3 letter abbreviation in an article title seems to be a lack of understanding or unwillingness to follow MOS:BEGIN re: include variations, included synonyms, giving context to specialised terms, adding relevant information in the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that while the article does make it adequately apparent by repeatedly associating ATA with the PC/AT's bus that there is possibly some connection in the names, the reader might be left asking that question. Clearly explicit explanation of whether or not it was the intent of the standard that this refer (directly or obliquely) to the PC/AT requires a secondary source, since the primary source doesn't mention it. I agree that The "AT" in "IBM PC/AT" refers to "Advanced Technology", but the ATA specifications published by the several standards committees simply use the name "AT Attachment" with no reference to "advanced technology", and the proposed ATA is frequently called Advanced Technology Attachment but such a definition does not appear in any ATA standard, both have the same WP:SYNTH problem: rather than being based on a secondary source, they combine statements from different sources to say something not said in either, linking them with the word "but" which is the exact example given at SYNTH. It's not the first time I've seen a stubborn reluctance to accept the implications of SYNTH. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error". We don't need a secondary source to directly quote the "horse's mouth" standards documents as using the term "AT Attachment", nor to note that the phrase "advanced technology" doesn't appear in any of eight different versions of them. Nor do we need a secondary source for conclusions a reader might draw from an article. The current phrasing is simply pointing out that the difference in interpretation exists and doesn't claim that one interpretation or the other is correct. It seems to me that FoBM and DIYe are claiming that there is no way within WP policy to point to two different interpretations of the name, one that expands "AT" and one that does not. Really? Is hiding that information the best way to improve the article? Jeh (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an old issue raised a number of times in the past and settled by consensus among a number of editors. FoBM has recieved no support for his edits to the lede but insists upon his WP:POV reaching WP:TE. The language of the many published standards is clear and consistent; "definition" ... "ATA (AT Attachment)." A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis that ATA is consists of three initials, that is simply not true and should not be in the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PC, XT, AT (and a number of other acronyms) - all became "words" which were then added onto. AT-Attachment is correct - as one can see from the sources. The origins of AT, as a term, are irrelevant for ATA (a term which lived on long after the death of the IBM Personal Computer/AT, its clones, other buses, and also when the AT wasn't quite so "advanced").Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"The current phrasing doesn't claim that any mention of "Advanced Technology" is "in error"", that is still stated in the editors note at top (unverified) and implied in the cited WP:SYNTH statement. settled by consensus among a number of editors - when claiming consensus its is helpful to link it, I did not see any consensus discussions on the wording of the lead. A lot of tertiary sources and FoBM have made the sythesis - well, secondary and tertiary have made that sythesis and that is their job, its not our job, and we seem to have a claim, again, that reliable secondary sources, and any editor who cites them, are wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here between the needs of a textbook and the needs of an encyclopedia. a textbook sets nomenclature and instructs a reader on usage, an encyclopedia does not - it simple reports what is in secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

FreeBMD

Copied from here (permalink)

A typed transcription of a scan of hard copy index is NOT a primary source. The primary source is the certificate of birth/marriage/death, or the registrars entry into the register. If while researching at University if someone had ask me what original research I had dome, and I had said "FreeBMD", I'd have been laughed out of the fucking building. Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A copy of a primary source is still the same primary source.

As I explained at User talk:Sitush, the births, marriages and death registers (which comprise the indexes and the individual entries) are the primary sources. Making a copy of a primary source into a different medium (which is all FreeBMD is, just a computer typed-up copy of the indexes without any individual interpretation or analysis allowed - I know, because I helped do some of it), is still the same primary source.

Searching those indexes and identifying the correct records for yourself is blatant original research, and it's frought with error - any genealogist worth their salt knows that there are masses of problems if you rely on index entries, some of which I have also explained at User talk:Sitush

Wikipedia requires secondary sources and I have also explained to you what that means, and I'll quote again here from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In this case, I went on to suggest that a suitable source might be, for example, something by someone who had done the BMD research properly and had published it in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's Johnny… A few points… 1. The Indexes are typed after the birth/marriage/death certificate is issued (sometimes years after the certificate is issued), and so are at least one step removed from the event, 2. The person creating the index is not the person that issued the birth/marriage/death certificate, and so are there is evaluation, and interpretation in the creation of the index, and 3. The index shows just the quarter of the year in which the birth/marriage/death was registered, not the actual birth/marriage/death registration date, and so the information is not the same as the primary source, i.e. the birth/marriage/death certificate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page that is referred to above, and in which you stood alone in your opinion, is here. Nothing has changed. Drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:Secondary sources is quite clear, and I'll repeat what I copied for you above...

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them."

The BMD indexes are just that, indexes, and carry no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, and no analytic or evaluative claims (and the fact that the indexes are not typed by the same person who typed the register entry (not the "certficates" - a certificate is a copy of the register entry) does not change that). The indexes are simply partial copies of some of the information that's in the BMD registers themselves, filed under quarter. They are most definitely not secondary sources. For genealogical material, you would need to find someone who has done the research properly, verified that they have all the correct entries, etc, and published the results in a reliable source. Searching the indexes to try to find the correct entries yourself and adding the results of that to Wikipedia articles is clear original research (as per WP:OR). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• To expand with an example. A Tom Askin is born, an entry is made in the birth register for him, and a certificate is copied from that entry for his parents. Then, sometime later, someone else goes through all the register entries, quarter by quarter, and types out the index. All they're doing is making a one-line entry in the index for each birth contained in the register, and that is still a primary source - the primary/secondary question is not about who who creates the document or when it is created chronologically, but is about the nature of its content. What the transcriber is not doing, obviously, is saying "This is the baby who will go on to be a cricketer" (or, in the case of a death index, "This is the cricketer") - they are not identifying which Tom Askin they're typing up an index entry for. Someone identifying the index entries as relating to a specific Tom Askin would be creating a secondary source, as they are analysing the primary source, consulting with other documentary evidence, and synthesising new information based on their primary sources - and if they publish it in a reliable source, we can use it. But you and I, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to do it ourselves, as it is Original research. We are not allowed to search the indexes and decide for ourselves which ones correspond to the people we are writing about - several of us have given examples of how badly wrong that can go, but even if it might seem conclusive in some cases, it's still prohibited by WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an "interesting" scenario… secondary sources have identified that Tom Askin married A. Stephenson of Whitley Bridge at Kellington Parish Church on 16 August 1933… FreeBMD has the marriage of Thomas C. Askin to Aubuary (née Stephenson) registered during July→September 1933 in Pontefract district… are we saying this FreeBMD can/cannot be used to augment other secondary references? Also, as it stands, I don't believe that asking questions on talk pages is a Wiki-crime just yet, so I dont believe that comments such as… "If you are going to keep using this crap, I will get you topic banned", and this "is quite likely to end badly for you" are actually appropriate. DynamoDegsy (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is OR. There are even instances - more common than I think you realise - where two children of the same parents have been given the same name, and registration districts were often huge (eg: the one for Sculcoates). There are also gaps in the FreeBMD data, which the site acknowledges and which actually applies to the example you give. The general issue has been explained to you previously and WP:IDHT alone is grounds for blocking etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'd agree that FreeBMD record can not be used. No matter how close it appears (and even if it is the correct one), using it is still WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In general I agree with Situch (including that this discussion should be at NORN and not here). There is no blanket rule against use of primary sources, and it is commonplace to quote from primary sources in illustration of material from a reliable secondary source that refers to the primary document. However, the problem with BMD records is the identification of the primary record. In the examples given here, the possibility of mis-identification is sufficiently high that I don't think we can use the primary source at all. I know from my own knowledge of BMD records that people of the same name doing similar things around the same time in nearby places is a common occurrence. It would be fine if there was a reliable secondary source which identified a particular primary record as belonging to a particular person, but making such identifications ourselves is not allowed. I could be persuaded of an exception if the details were extremely precise, but I don't remember seeing any examples of that in the encyclopedia. Zero^talk 03:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

Historically, when I believed there was a possibility of mis-identification I have not used the reference in the article, but I would usually add a query section to the article's Talk page, e.g. Talk:Arthur_Higgins_(rugby_league)#Birth?, which seemed non-controversial to me. I don't intend to create (or add to) any further articles with FreeBMD references, but I'm still not sure why it took 9-years for FreeBMD references to be identified as obviously problematic, it would have saved me an awful lot of time if the problem had been identified earlier. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that surprised me too. And, as I've said elsewhere, I do feel for you after you've done so much work using it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And me. Someone on the rugby league project did tell me recently that it comprises a very small core group of people, so perhaps that contributed to the issue. Still, it has happened now and, unfortunately given the amount of time you have spent on it, it will need to be fixed. For what it's worth, you're not alone; for example, there was a great deal of use of British Raj sources in caste articles which were added by people (many by just one person) who meant well but which simply do not meet our guidelines etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Estimate the year of birth...

Copied from here (permalink)

Is it considered original research to… estimate the year of birth, by subtracting the age at death stated in a reference, from the date of death stated in the same (or different) reference? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Simple math(s) is ok. But beware of synthesising sources and, in the circumstances you are referring to (which is rugby league biographies), do not use websites unless you can be 100 per cent sure they have not mirrored the original research that you already introduced into those bios. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this should be at WP:NORN. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also note that this is a non-trivial calculation, unless you also know the birthday of the person. Example: Person X died 12 September 2017 at the age of 100. The simple estimate would be "Year of birth = 1917" (ie 2017-100). However, if this person would have been born on 24 December 1916 the person would still be 100 in September 2017 and the estimated year of birth would be obviously wrong. (and if we know the birthday, chances high are we already know year of birth as well) Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We have a template {{Birth date based on age at death}} that takes this into account and covers the 2016/17 issue. As long as people acknowledge that without the date of birth there is the one year variation and don't make a definite statement about the year of birth and use the range or c.2016/17 then simple maths is ok. Nthep (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

^^ Agree. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

End copy

I agree with Sitush and Nthep here. WP:CALC would seem to apply and as long as you indicate the "circa", that's good enough imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

The issue has to do with two sentences taken from seperate paragraphs describing two different incidents more than 10 years appart in David Carradine#Reports of arrests and prosecutions being placed one after another in Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State in a manner which seems like WP:SYN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)