Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis.
  • Include links to the relevant article(s).
  • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II.
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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

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.

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[1]

Thank you for helping out.

Input requested at Harry Potter in translation[edit]

Additional participation is requested at Talk:Harry Potter in translation#Use of Potterglot as a source. The section Harry Potter in translation#Number of official translations is based almost entirely on an editor's self-published external source. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for OR, there are concerns about how the number of official translations is calculated, as well as commentary on specific translations. The author of the source in question is also a major contributor to the article, and repeated the OR in that SPS on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:LaundryPizza03, perhaps you'd like to weigh in over there? Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input requested at Talk:Greased piglet#RfC on examples[edit]

Additional participation is requested please at this RfC which I think hinges on the interpretation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. It is trying to decide whether examples of use should require a reliable source to verify that they are notable examples, or whether editors can search the web and select any examples of its use that they find and cite those directly as examples. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corporate Watch[edit]

Hi everyone, a large portion of the content at Corporate Watch looks like original research. Version history shows that much of it comes from an editor who has only edited this page. I have removed some of it but I'd welcome more sets of eyes. Kind regards, (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Treating lexical cohesion in sources[edit]

Is there any guideline that discusses how lexical cohesion in sources should be treated?

There are several ongoing debates in Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine, and the big complication seems to be caused by the sources avoiding repetition of the term "war crime" using lexical constructs such as:

  1. We... solemnly condemn the abominable attack... Indiscriminate attacks on innocent victims constitute a war crime. [8]
  2. drawing from a variety of sources, have independently documented hundreds of attacks across Ukraine that likely constitute war crimes... But a handful, including the destruction of the X, indicate N fighters are also to blame. [9]
  3. a former Defense Department official and a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations, said the N forces may have violated the laws of armed conflict by not evacuating... residents and staff. [10]
  4. The use of human shields is specifically prohibited by article 28 of Geneva Convention IV and article 51(7) of additional protocol I... the case of X has been emblematic in this regard. [11]

There is a disagreement amongst editors whether each of such statements in sources supports that an event mentioned in the statement was a war crime, or whether such interpretation is an original research.

An opinion that they can be interpreted to state the event as war crime, but only if another source exists that would interpret them and re-state the fact without cohesion ("X committed a war crime in Y" or "Y is a war crime") has been expressed as well.

I think a wider community input would be helpful to solve this OR debate between a few involved editors, and also would be personally interested to learn how cohesion in sources is usually treated and whether there are any precedents or guidelines to this regard. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is kind of related to the questions discussed at WT:OR. IMHO, it is not original research to logically interpret simple meanings and group related info given baseline assumptions. Andrevan@ 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Synonyms or paraphrasing are WP:NOTOR. You should not swap in a term that's more loaded or perjorative than the source uses, but if the source uses them as synonyms there seems to be no probem. Sennalen (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agreed with this. Andrevan@ 01:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia original research request[edit]

The List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia article has a section describing the succession of seats after 1895. The section includes a table for each of the seven seats listing the chain of justices who succeeded each other in that seat.

In 2022, two justices (Mims and Lemons) retired, creating overlapping vacancies. (Mims retired in April; Lemons retired in February). The General Assembly of Virginia elected two new justices (Mann and Russell) to fill the seats, but not until June. The General Assembly did not indicate which of the two new justices was filling which vacant seat.

When a similar situation arose in 2011 when one justice (Hassell) died and another (Koontz) retired, the General Assembly elected two new justices (McClanahan and Powell) but indicated which new justice replaced which outgoing justice because the judicial interview list shows that of the two new justices, only Powell was interviewed for the Hassell vacancy.[1] A similiar situation also occurred when two vacancies overlapped in 1969 and were filled with appointments by Governor Mills Godwin. Again, on that occasion, Governor Godwin reported to the General Assembly that he had appointed new Justice Cochran to succeed Justice Eggleston and new Justice Harman to succeed Justice Buchanan.[2]

There is no similar indication of which of the 2022 new justices replaced which 2022 outgoing justice. Both new justices were elected on the same day. Two users have asserted that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons, but the media articles they have added to support their citations only say that Lemons and Mims retired, and that Mann and Russell were elected as replacements. The cited articles do not say that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons.

Because there is no publicly verifiable source material supporting the assertion that Mann replaced Mims and Russell replaced Lemons, the two users' revisions making that connection on the Wikipedia article appear to be original research. One of the users who made the change suggested that the connection is implied from the order in which Lemons and Mims vacated their seats, but judgeships are not filled on a first-out, first-in basis. For example, Seat 7 on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacant for 16 years while presidents nominated and the Senate confirmed judges to fill other seats on that court.

An impartial review would be appropriate. Glanvil (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I disagree that there is no source to this effect. The two sources added to the article both say words to the effect that Mann and Russell replaced Mims and Lemons (or Mims and Lemons were replaced by Mann and Russell) in that word order. The consistent use of an order in saying that A and B were replaced by C and D is sufficient indication, in the context of succession of seats on a court that A was replaced by C and B was replaced by D. BD2412 T 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The order of the names has not been consistent in press reports. For example, the Associated Press report lists Lemons' retirement first, then Mims' retirement; the same report lists Mann's election first, then Russell's.[3] That's the opposite order compared to the two articles you cited.
    The AP version was republished by several news outlets, including DC-area newsradio station WTOP-FM,[4] national newspaper U.S. News & World Report,[5], and Virginia's legal trade journal, the Virginia Lawyers Weekly.[6]
    Because the order used in the press reports is not consistent, choosing which press report to cite is arbitrary and outcome-determinative. Glanvil (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think it's very clear where the source states, "The Hon. Thomas P. Mann of Fairfax Circuit Court begins his term on August 1. The Hon. Wesley G. Russell Jr. of the Virginia Court of Appeals begins his term on July 1. The new justices fill the openings created by the retirement of Justice William C. Mims, and former Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons". However, just to be sure, I'll call the court and ask. BD2412 T 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I am on the phone with the clerk of the court right now, and they have confirmed the succession as stated, noting that the judge taking their seat earlier succeeded the judge who retired earlier. BD2412 T 14:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You are continuing to edit the Wikipedia article about the topic in dispute while my dispute resolution request is still pending here.
        I, too, have spoken with the court clerk's office and--contradicting one of your recent edit summaries--office and seating assignments are based on seniority according to when a justice is sworn in, not on which former justice a new one replaced (except for the Chief Justice, who is always the most senior). And the Supreme Court of Virginia Historical Advisory Committee confirms that there is no link between either Justice Mann or Justice Russell with either of the two overlapping vacancies because the General Assembly did not say which new justice was replacing which retired justice. The General Assembly just filled the two existing vacancies.Glanvil (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a contradiction, seniority being based on the first incoming justice replacing the first outgoing justice. In any case irrespective of office and seating assignments, the clerk of the court specifically informed me, as they likely did you, that Mann succeeded Mims and Russell succeeded Lemons. BD2412 T 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put in an OTRS ticket via an email to the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia which will settle this beyond further question. BD2412 T 22:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The appointing authority, not the court, is the conclusive authority about who replaced whom, so I did not ask the clerk's office's opinion on that; I asked whether office and seating assignments were based on seniority according to when a justice is sworn in.
I've emailed the Division of Legislative Service's committee counsel for the House of Delegates' Courts of Justice Committee and Senate of Virginia's Judiciary Committee, and the committee chairmen's legislative offices, but I doubt there will be a response before next week. In the meantime, I point out that in the nominating resolutions, Mann is listed first.[7][8]This is also the order shown in the House and Senate's minutes of the session during which Mann and Russell were elected.[9][10]
So to the extent your argument depends on an inference that first-in replaced first-out, according to data from the appointing authority from which to draw such an inference, Mann would replace Lemons (whose retirement was effective first), not Mims, even though Mann's term specifically did not begin until August 1; Russell would replace Mims, even though Russell's term specifically began earlier on July 1. My argument, though, is that there is no public, verifiable source material stating who replaced whom, and in my opinion all these conflicting data points weigh in favor of that conclusion.Glanvil (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is your source for the extraordinary proposition that after 127 years of having a succession of seats, and 60 actual successions, all having the first to leave the court succeeded by the next to join the court, the Supreme Court of Virginia has suddenly and without notice abandoned the practice of having a succession of seats? That is the source we would need to say that there has not, in fact, been a succession of seats in this case. My argument is that you never bothered to specifically ask who succeeded who in the first place, and I did ask this (because that is the question we are trying to resolve), and I was specifically told by the court that Russell succeeded Lemons and Mann succeeded Mims. The question of who is the "conclusive authority" is nonsense. If this was reported in the Norfolk News you wouldn't be saying that we can't use that newspaper as a source because the newspaper staff are not the "conclusive authority". You also appear to be confused about the relevant dates. Lemons left the court on February 1, 2022. Mims left the court on March 31, 2022. February comes before March, period. The situation would be no different if Lemons left the court on February 1, 2022 and Mims, having already announced his retirement, had continued to serve until mid-July, after Mann took his seat. The situation is the same for all of the 60 prior successions on the court. For example when George L. Browning left the court on August 26, 1947, he was succeeded by Abram Penn Staples, who assumed office on October 7, 1947, even though Henry W. Holt left the court on October 4, 1947. Where is the source stating that there has been a change in this longstanding practice? BD2412 T 00:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The court doesn't decide which incoming justice replaces which outgoing justice; the appointing authority does. For example, when a president sends a federal judge's nomination to the Senate for confirmation, the nomination specifies which judge the nominee would replace. To illustrate, see the bottom of page 8 of the Senate's Executive Calendar for August 7, 2022, showing that President Biden nominated Andre Mathis to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit vice Bernice Bouie Donald.[11] The Sixth Circuit doesn't decide whose seat Mathis fills, if the Senate confirms him.
The reason we can attribute a chain of title, as it were, to the seats on the Supreme Court of Virginia between 1895 and 1971 is that before the current Constitution of Virginia took effect in 1971, the General Assembly or the Governer had to specify which outgoing justice a new justice replaced, because under Section 102 of the Constitution of 1902,[12] a new justice who was appointed to fill a vacancy created by death, retirement, or removal only served for the unexpired part of his predecessor's term. (Under Section 91, the terms were staggered, so there was no doubt who a new justice replaced if his predecessor's seat became vacant because the term simply expired; only one term naturally expired at a time.[12]) Thus, as the citation in the Wikipedia article already reflects, Governor Godwin told the General Assembly that he had appointed Cochran to replace Eggleston in Seat 2 and Harman to replace Buchanan in Seat 3 when those vacancies overlapped in 1969.
So the period at issue here is not 127 years or 60 successions; it is the 51 years since the Constitution of 1971 took effect. And the reason there hasn't been an issue in that 51-year period, until now, is that there was only one occasions where vacancies overlapped: in 2011, when Koontz retired and Hassell died before the General Assembly elected anyone to fill Koontz's seat. In 2011, the General Assembly indicated that Powell succeeded Hassell and McClanahan succeeded Koontz because, again as cited in the Wikipedia article, the judicial nominee interview dockets show who was interviewed for which seat.
Separately, to return to your Abram Penn Staples example, we know that Staples replaced Browning because Governor Tuck appointed Staples on August 28, 1947 (even though he wasn't sworn in until October 7).[13] We know that Staples did not replace Chief Justice Holt because Holt didn't die until October 4, 1947,[14] so Browning's seat was the only one vacant for Tuck to fill when he appointed Penn in August. I'll be happy to explain any other vacancies you'd like to question, even where they are not overlapping vacancies--just as the Browning-Holt vacancies did not overlap.
You may reject the idea that the appointing authority is the "conclusive authority," but you introduced the idea of conclusivity when you said that "the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia" "will settle this beyond further question." The OES cannot settle who replaced whom beyond question, because it does not decide who replaced whom. The court could not decide for itself before 1971 which of two justices appointed at the same time filled which of two overlapping vacancies because, as explained above, it made a difference in how long each of the two new justices' terms would be; if the court could decide which justice replaced whom in an overlapping vacancy situation, it would have been deciding how long each of the new justices' terms would be, and it did not have that power; the appointing authority did. Although the Constitution of 1971 ended staggered terms and allows new justices to serve full 12-year terms, regardless of how the vacancy they're filling arose, the Constitution of 1971 did not confer any new power on the court to decide which new justice replaces which outgoing justice, and the court clearly lacked that power before 1971.
Next, if the question of who succeeded whom had been clearly reported in a press article, it may have been sufficient authority to remove the question from the realm of a "no original research" dispute, but a press report can still be mistaken. When there are contradictory, publicly-verifiable sources, there can still be a legitimate debate on Wikipedia about the weight of the sources.
Finally, I am not confused about when Lemons and Mims retired. As I said in my most recent reply (before this one), Lemons retired first. Mann is listed first in the House and Senate nominating resolutions, and is shown as elected first in the House and Senate minutes. There's at least as sound an argument to be made (for purposes of your first-out, first-in theory of succession) that Mann was elected first, so succeeded Lemons, and Russell elected second, so succeded Mims, based on the order of nomination and election, as there is that Russell's term started first, so he successed Lemons, and Mann's term started second, so he succeeded Mims. But I disagree that your first-in, first-out theory is valid; my theory is that the appointing authority has to specify. The implied constitutional requirement to do so (to determine the length of the new justice's term) may have been eliminated in 1971, but the principle is the same: the authority putting a justice on the court is the authority that decides who that new justice replaced. If the General Assembly didn't make that decision this time, then the order of succession is as arbitrary in this instance as it was when the General Assembly filled five overlapping vacancies when it elected a full new bench in 1895. As nice as it might be--as clean and convenient as it might be--for there to be an orderly succession in the seats, there's no requirement for one anymore, after 1971; there wasn't an orderly succession in the seats in 1895, and there may not be one in these two seats now.Glanvil (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I received a response directly from Senator John Edwards, chairman of the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee. I have not yet received a response from Delegate Rob Bell, chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee. I specifically asked Senator Edwards "do you know if there is any public documentation about which Justice filled which vacancy? For example, did Justice Mann replace Justice Lemons or Justice Mims? If there is no public documentation, do you have any insight you can share on that question?" The answer was, "I don’t know which new justice replaced which of the two retiring justices." He also confirmed that there was no intention to indicate a successor based on the start date of each new justice's term. He said he did not know why Justice Mann's term began on August 1, and that Justice Russell would take seniority over Justice Mann on the court because Russell took office first, but that this was "happenstance."
If the chairman of one of the two legislative committees responsible for certifying the candidates for election to the judgeships doesn't know which new justice replaced which outgoing justice, then I renew my assertion that any attempt to establish who succeeded whom in the two vacant seats is purely arbitrary.Glanvil (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Judicial Interviews, House Judicial Panel Schedule, April 5, 2011" (PDF). Division of Legislative Services. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
  2. ^ Senate Journal, 1970 Regular Session. p. 45.
  3. ^ Lavoie, Denise (2022-06-17). "After impasse, legislators elect 2 Supreme Court justices". Associated Press. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
  4. ^ Lavoie, Denise (2022-06-17). "After impasse, legislators elect 2 Supreme Court justices". WTOP-FM. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
  5. ^ Lavoie, Denise (2022-06-17). "After impasse, legislators elect 2 Supreme Court justices". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
  6. ^ Lavoie, Denise (2022-06-20). "After impasse, legislators elect 2 Supreme Court justices". Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved August 5, 2022.
  7. ^ "House Resolution 779, 2022 Special Session I". Retrieved August 6, 2022.
  8. ^ "Senate Resolution 666, 2022 Special Session I". Retrieved August 6, 2022.
  9. ^ "House of Delegates Minutes, June 17, 2022". Retrieved August 6, 2022.
  10. ^ "Senate of Virginia Minutes, June 17, 2022". Retrieved August 6, 2022.
  11. ^ "Senate of the United States, Executive Calendar, Sunday, Sugust 7, 2022" (PDF). Retrieved August 7, 2022.
  12. ^ a b "Virginia Constitution of 1902". Retrieved August 7, 2022.
  13. ^ "Virginia Appellate Court History, Abram Penn Staples". Retrieved August 7, 2022.
  14. ^ Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals During the Time of These Reports, 186 Va. unpaginated front matter (1947).

As I have already explained, I received confirmation of the order of succession from the court. Finding someone who doesn't know the answer to the question has no bearing on the fact that the question has been answered. This quest to apparently prove the unsourced contention that the state of Virginia has secretly abandoned a 127-year old practice of having a succession of seats, based on the common sense progression of the first justice to leave the court being succeeded by the next justice to join the court, is tilting at windmills. BD2412 T 23:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Jane's Revenge § Militant, extremist[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jane's Revenge § Militant, extremist. Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Write the Infinite Article[edit]

For your consideration, Wikipedia:Write the Infinite Article - an essay relating to original research. Sennalen (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a primary source or a secondary source?[edit]

Hello, there’s a disagreement at Talk:Coup_d'état#Large_deletion_of_material as to whether this is a primary source or a secondary source:

Marsteintredet, Leiv and Malamud, Andrés. “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research”, Political Studies Vol. 68(4) 1014–1035 (2020).

This seems to me like scholarly material from a reputable secondary source. Of course, if people would like to find scholars who have a different position, any such scholars can be cited too, but I’m not aware of any. The authors of the deleted material are reputable scholars:

  • Leiv Marsteintredet, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
  • Andrés Malamud, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal

As for the journal, the lead of its Wikipedia article says this: "Political Studies is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering all areas of political science, established in 1953 and published quarterly by SAGE Publications on behalf of the Political Studies Association." This particular article has already been cited many times by scholars in this field, even though this particular article was published relatively recently (2020), per Google scholar.

Thanks for advice. If parts of it are primary while parts of it are secondary, here’s how the source was used in the Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we here? At the source dispute no one has questioned whether this is a primary source, have they? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s incorrect. At the source dispute, I said “This is scholarly material from a reputable secondary source.” Another editor said, “The content seems undue as it is primary research, not secondary.” Per the Wikipedia article titled secondary source, “Secondary sources in history and humanities are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar. In the humanities, a peer reviewed article is always a secondary source.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, I thought you were holding the "scholarly" work up as primary too. Thanks for focusing the question.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's UNDUE because it is a cherrypicked source that promote a POV under discussion on a different WP page and it has been stuck it on the Coup page where it is not central to mainstream narratives as to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m not aware of any source that contradicts it, but your solution in a case like this would be to find such sources instead of blanking what you don’t like. This reliable secondary source was cited twice by this Wikipedia article for other points, before I ever touched that Wikipedia article. Just because it goes against your POV is no reason to exclude it for some purposes and not others. You know that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:ONUS and do not edit war this content back into the article without prior talk page consensus. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I've asserted at the article talk page, and here below, that how this paper was being used means that it is a primary source. It is a correlative analysis by the authors of three disparate datasets; a combined English/Spanish Google ngram search, and data of recorded coups from two other papers. Combining these sources in this way represents a novel idea of the authors, and the findings of that combination are new information, which is inherently a primary source per WP:PRIMARYINPART.
In addition, there are concerns, based upon one of two papers that actually cite the relevant findings of this analysis that it may be in part incorrect or inaccurate for coups in West Africa. As such, it is very difficult to assess the source for weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any analytical papers are secondary sources for the facts they contain, including facts about the relative acceptance of opinions, and primary sources for the opinions of its authors. TFD (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our article secondary source says, “In the humanities, a peer reviewed article is always a secondary source.” Maybe the job of peer review is to remove unsubstantiated opinion, leaving only substantiated facts and conclusions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just want to remind everyone to read WP:VNOT. It may be relevant here. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean whether it is DUE or not? :) Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think Wikipedia editors are supposed to reject content merely because they dislike it, which I see all the time. If something is well-sourced and a Wikipedia editor feels strongly about including it, the best path is to let it in, I do so all the time, while trying to make sure it’s presented with other viewpoints that may contradict it. Just blanking material you don’t like is the worst kind of censorship. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Policy allows reverting addition of material even for a crap reason although one would hope that if the reason was merely idontlikeit, then other editors would weigh in to readd. DUEness is a legitimate reason for keeping something out as long as it can be explained why something is undue. Again, editors need to arrive at a consensus on the point. Initially though, if one is trying to add something, then the so called WP:ONUS rests with the one trying to add and being well sourced (verifiable) is necessary but can be insufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like nothing is sufficient, no reason is sufficient, next to a greater number of editors who merely say there’s no consensus to include. WP:UNDUE insists that “pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints”, and this material at issue now is manifestly one of those viewpoints. It violates WP:UNDUE to exclude it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the local consensus (on the article talk page) is against you, your only recourse, apart from just walking away, is to increase the eyes on the problem. This noticeboard is for OR problems, you might want to ask at the NPOV board whether the source is a sufficiently held viewpoint for inclusion but try and demonstrate that it is first. If you are out of arguments and still wish to press the issue, an RFC is an option (same idea, get more eyes on it). Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn’t matter how many eyes are on it, if the notion keeps spreading that people are entitled to reject whatever content they don’t like. And that notion certainly is getting very widespread in Wikipedia articles related to law and government. What special interest group wouldn’t want to dive into Wikipedia now to make sure that articles suit their fancy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is exactly why "more eyes" works, in general. It draws in editors with no axe to grind. In an RFC, the policy based arguments are more important, an editor whose view translates to idontlike it is not going to have that much attention paid to them. Whereas a "pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints" argument will carry some weight. As for sigs, well they are doing that all the time, eventually legit editors will catch up with them. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said at the article talk page, my objections to this are not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They are based upon the NPOV policy. You are correct in saying that pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints, however it also says in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Based on the papers that cite Marsteintredet and Malamud, it is impossible to identify the prominence of this work, in relation to others published in the same area. The paper is not that well cited; it has only 14 citations that are not from undergraduate or masters theses, and only two of the English language citations actually cite and make commentary of the information we are interested in. This is why I have repeatedly stated that it is undue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave yesterday, what I thought was a pretty comprehensive rationale for why I think the content is undue (diffs; [12], [13], [14]). I'll go over the key points again here though for clarity.
The source was being used for this added section, where it is citing the findings of Marsteintredet and Malamud's original research. Breaking it down by paragraphs:
  • As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades. Yet, the term “coup” was occurring more frequently in both academic and non-academic contexts, especially in conjunction with an adjective like “soft” or “parliamentary” or “electoral” or “slow-motion”.
    This paragraph is citing a juxtaposition of a Google ngram search conducted by the researchers, using the 2012 English and 2012 Spanish corpora (per page 3, and note 2 on page 19 of the PDF), against the frequency of recorded coups as reported in two papers by Powell and Thyne (2011), and Przeworski et al (2013) (pdf page 7). That analysis by Marsteintredet and Malamud is inherently a primary source, because it represents their analysis and correlation between the three sources.
    This presents two issues; one is that the sentence is misleading, and the other is one of weight. We cannot say in Wikivoice that As of 2019, coups were occurring less frequently than in previous decades, because the research by Marsteintredet and Malamud only covers the period between circa 1800 and 2012, as the sources used by Marsteintredet and Malamud only cover that period. At best we could say "As of 2012, coups were occurring...".
    However we also have the issue of how much weight do we assign this source. Because it is a primary source for this correlation, we cannot assess from this source how well regarded these findings are. The paper itself has been cited 18 times, six of which are noted on Sagepub, and the remainder from Google Scholar. Of those 18 citations, 4 are unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, 4 I was unable to assess due to a language barrier (I don't speak Spanish, Portuguese, or Romanian), 2 I was unable to access, leaving 7 sources which I read to see how they use the work. Of those seven sources, only two cite it in a way that is relevant to this sentence, one of which has a brief positive analysis, and the other which contests the findings in relation to coups in West Africa. As such, based on the sources that cite this source, I would assign it low to zero weight for this sentence.
  • This development has been linked to a more general linguistic phenomenon: when instances of a concept become less frequent, the understanding of that concept expands to cover more cases.
    Here we have a problem of causation versus correlation. The work by Marsteintredet and Malamud is pretty explicit that they are reporting on a correlation only. We also have the issue of weight from the previous paragraph, because this part of the paper is not widely cited by others, and when it is it is contested.
  • Political scientists Leiv Marsteintredet and Andrés Malamud, who have studied this general phenomenon as it applies to the particular word “coup”, caution that, “labeling an event as a coup may generate political actions of grave consequences such as the withholding of aid, the suspension from international organizations, the triggering of international sanctions, and even foreign military intervention.” They assert that the constitutive elements of a “coup” are summarized in the definition provided by Powell and Thyne who wrote in 2011 that a coup occurs when “the military or other elites within the state apparatus…unseat the sitting executive.”
    Notwithstanding the issues of weight, this paragraph is more reasonable, because it attributes it to the respective authors.
For me, the big issue here is one of weight. How much weight do we assign this paper? Is the findings of it representative of the mainstream view in this field? Based on how others have cited the findings with respect to the correlation, it is impossible to tell because we have only two datapoints; one of which is positive and the other negative. However this is only representative of the citations in English, and it is possible that the 4 other papers I cannot read due to a language barrier may offer some more clarity on this. Nonetheless, in lieu of that extra analysis I'm pretty confident in saying that this paper, in the way it has been proposed for use, is undue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the article 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis exist?[edit]

This article has a number of problems. It strikes me as a violation of our policies on WP:OR. The content is not the main issue, though there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues. But the article's existence takes many separate incidents, almost all of which already have independent Wikipedia page, and amalgamates them into one big crisis that doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. This is a type of synthesis/original research.

The article was originally split off from Iran–United States relations due to size, but it has just become a dumping ground for every little thing that happens in the Gulf or between the US and Iran, violating our WP:NOTNEWS policy as well. The article's content is already adequately covered at the many linked articles on specific incidents (May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone, 2019 K-1 Air Base attack, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, July 2021 Gulf of Oman incident, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and several others). The article's content is also covered at Iran–United States relations, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and several others. This article's existence is redundant. Its content is either better covered elsewhere or too trivial for inclusion at all.

I'm not convinced that this noticeboard is the right place to bring this up, but I couldn't think of a better place; if there is one, please let me know and I'll move it there. Starting an AfD would be the next step, but I wanted to discuss the issue in broader context first before going straight to deletion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the BBC there is/was(?) a crisis Iran and the crisis in the Gulf explained so it wouldn't seem to be OR on the face of it, at least originally. So the issue then would appear to be the scope, the original material that was split out must as well have had a scope at the time. If the article now contains material outside the scope (a "dumping ground") then maybe the simplest thing is to trim it. I haven't looked in detail but even if all those individual articles cover specific events in more detail, the "parent" article may still be good as overview depending on what sourcing is available. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]