Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

There is an AfD discussion currently occurring on the article. Discussion has been relisted twice now as this is quite a contentious topic so further input from others would be appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 11:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has seen edits adding the statement that Patreon banned the webcomic's creator for hate speech as a way for the article to address the webcomic's present form as hate speech, something that the article had not covered due to lack of reliable secondary sources for that. However, the edits all rely on primary sources. I've removed past edits which would only cite this tweet, on the basis that the tweet itself does not establish an unambiguous connection to the comic. A recent edit has provided additional information (such as about the creator being locked out from Twitter for hate speech also) and primary sources. The user who added the edit, User:BurningLibrary, has argued here that the edit only repeats what the primary sources say and such usage of primary sources is acceptable. As I don't think I'm well-equipped to handle this by myself anymore, I would like the issues of whether BurningLibrary's edit constitutes original research and whether any information about the comic or its creator being hateful can be added to the article without being the product of original research to be resolved here. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is not really so much a question of WP:OR as it is a question of WP:BLPSELFPUB. Self-published sources are only acceptable in this case if they meet the criteria presented there. Of those criteria, in my view, this situation passes 1, 3, 4, and 5; the only question is whether it passes criterion 2, viz., it does not involve claims about third parties. So does it count as a claim about a third party for Ishida to say Patreon removed my account, Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic, etc.? I'd say these examples probably fall under that definition, but I could be wrong.
I, too, would like to see more reliable, secondary coverage of the webcomic, and I'm mildly surprised that none seems to exist past ~2016. Shells-shells (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, taking quick peek into the creator's twitter, it seems like post-2016 the comic took a hard turn into TERF territory; nearly all of the recent comics revolve around shitting on LGBT people. I'll take a dive over the weekend and see if I can scrape anything up to give a more accurate description of the comic with appropriate sourcing. (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a recent post in the (highly critical) Sinfest subreddit discussing how outdated our article is because of the lack of outside coverage, and it doesn't seem like they've managed to scrape up anything of substance either. One would think that if there's anything to find, they would have found it by now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I scoured every search engine I could think of and came up empty. It seems like the last article written on it that wasn't a blog or from tumblr was from 2016 (which is already cited on the page). On one hand, that sucks if we're trying to write a comprehensive article, on the other, it is probably best if that alt-right troll is denied any attention... DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The creator is definitely hateful, a quick peek over their twitter and recent comics can show that. The issue is finding secondary sources that state it. (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Centre-left politics[edit]

There's currently a dispute at centre-left politics about whether the cited sources support green politics as an example of centre-left politics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Census birth/death records[edit]

They are considered primary source. In WP:FAMILYSEARCH, it says family search sometimes includes copies of such records which are sometimes usable. Any example of when birth/death records are acceptable when it is not specifically referenced to by a reliable source? My understanding is using such a source on your own is considered WP:OR. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability.. Some examples of said "limited situations" would be useful. Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to be forum shopping. Before I noticed the shopping, I responded. I am moving my response to what I consider to be the proper talk page, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Primary source birth certificate, death records and such. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of my question here. I am really trying to clarify what "original research" means in this context. If one has to look at multiple birth/death records, look at several different ones to know that they're talking about the right individual, does that constitute doing original research? Thing about WP:OR is that it's disallowed anywhere. WP:RSP doesn't say original research using primary sources are ok as long as the article subject has been dead xx years. Graywalls (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see forum shopping here. But I find that when a question is relevant to multiple noticeboards the best thing to do is to have the discussion at one and post notifications with links at the others. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure about the focal seizure article[edit]

I've done a lot of research trying to find citations to improve the focal seizure article, specifically the section on presentation of simple partial seizures while asleep. Almost the entirety of the section on simple partial seizures is unsourced, but specifically I have concerns about the section on while-asleep symptoms because I can't find anything to support any of it. That entire section was added back in 2007 in one edit with no source (see this diff - the article it belongs to was merged into the focal seizures article in 2013). This worries me because it's medical related, and a casual reader could easily take it at face value, which could cause problems if it's not actually true. It's completely possible I've missed an obvious source, but I'm out of ideas trying to find anything. Any advice? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having a discussion with myself. Is this past the borderline of OR? I am about to review it and wish to get it right. Please ping me on your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talkcontribs)

Deleting OR content that appears in large quantity[edit]

Hi, I need input at List of ethnic cleansing campaigns.

This list has massive problems with unsourced content and even worse, failed verification/OR issues. Many of the entries in the list are not supported by sources that support the claim that the incident in question was an ethnic cleansing campaign. Thus, they are based on individual editors' belief that they constitute ethnic cleansing.

I tried to fix it by removing WP:OR content, but have been reverted by editors who claim the changes are too sweeping, because of the magnitude of the errors found.

In my opinion, it is never appropriate to restore original research content when it was removed by another editor. There is no way we should be allowing poorly sourced content on such a sensitive topic to stand. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding parts not found in the cited source[edit]

Article Vlachs, entries 1 and 2, text: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia could not be verified in the source(s). On discussion page the editor failed to provide with clear quotes from the sources that sustain his synthesis of the material, including the naming of provinces added in his edit. Please advise.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a discussion at the article Talk page about proposed content that includes discussion about original research/synthesis. Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why you posted this here since you are the only one that thinks there is any OR going on. Loki (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a discussion at Talk:Far-left politics that could use some more eyes. There is currently disagreement about how to approach sources covering the topic, and it's moving toward arguing about whether Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism should be considered significant far-left concepts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The major disagreement is whether far left is a distinct topic defined in a body of reliable sources or merely an expression used by people to refer to the part of the Left they consider unacceptable. TFD (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeterminacy debate in legal theory[edit]

As I've laid out in the talk page of the relevant article, vast amounts of text have been added to Indeterminacy debate in legal theory over the last 2-3 weeks, by one user, with zero inline citations. That, combined with the user in question saying that his aim was to discuss the issue in a way markedly different to all existing sources on the topic, raised NOR flags for me.

In subsequent discussion on his talk page (or actually the talk page of one of the several IPs/accounts he's been editing under) he has also said that:

  • His writing on one concept was unsourced and largely his own work. He got the name of the concept from a source, but then interpreted it without sourcing, because he "didn't think that it was reasonable to source that matter because [source] doesn't really describe what [concept] is".
  • He had "managed to circumstantially piece together an interpretation of what [concept] is with wikilinks to related topics"
  • "I do not definitively know that I got the idea of [concept] from [source]. The term was learned from [source], but my interpretation of the term (as to how he used) it was mine"

To me this seems basically to be an admission of large volumes of original research. The editor's response, during the same talk page discussion, has essentially been a strange kind of rules-lawyering, to reject the existence of the No Original Research policy and to accuse me of hypocrisy for engaging in interpretation of said policy's applicability to this situation.

In terms of the article itself, I think the best course of action would be to revert it to before this volume of text was added, given the user's own admission that it is original work. But if there are people knowledgeable on the topic who think it could/should be saved, that would be great too. In general though I'd appreciate some third-party input on how to resolve this dispute. Many thanks in advance. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When AntiD points out that WP:OR is "an English Wikipedia policy", the editor's replies are Yeah? Fascinating. How did you manage to overcome the indeterminism relative to the matter to ascertain the said policy as valid, thus signifying that it exists as a policy? and You did resolve whether or not there was indeterminism as to the policy, right? I mean, there is also a contradiction called "ignore all rules." You've failed to prove-up that your so-called policy is entailed from the terms of service. Are there any editors/admins who are up for dealing with this sort of wikilawyer? Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't wikilawyering. It's trolling. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor has now gone completely silent on any concerns raised, having editted almost continuously since the beginning of the month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 15:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The engagement they had been giving on various talk pages was pretty evidently bad faith so I stopped replying after a while. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor needs to comply with WP:OR and WP:V. Expanding the article is probably good, but it needs citations to be useful to anyone. As a lawyer, my first though reviewing their work is concern over the lack of inline cites. If I want to better understand any of these claims or concepts the article is not telling me where to go and that's a big WP:V issue.
Also, their habit of picking up philosophical arguments about how things are fundamentally indeterminate is a paper tiger. The world doesn't run on strict linguistic communication (and determinable knowledge), but normative understandings. Maybe they'll understand that better when a normative consensus forms that they are violating policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picking through all that would be a nightmare, editors shouldn't create work for other editors to fix. I've added my objection to the nature of the additions on the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. It seems like there is consensus here, but I'm also aware only a few people have voiced their thoughts. This is my first time trying to resolve a dispute like this; should I wait for more general community input before doing anything? AntiDionysius (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that you post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law to get the attention of editors experienced in that area to help evaluate the content. It's difficult to enforce inline citations for new content when the article never used inline citations. Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense, I'll go ask them. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undisclosed promotional COI editing by user Zenica87[edit]

This person made a giant mess. It is very likely that the articles they worked on were also edited by other accounts with an undisclosed COI. Polygnotus (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Noonlight Data collection and analysis[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Noonlight that has come to a bit of a standstill as others have stopped responding and would appreciate some more eyes on.

The question is whether or not the sourced material has evidence to substantiate the claim made on the company's page. Msmw4 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've boldly edited the article per the discussion on the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Television Series: Adventure into Fear[edit]

There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series regarding the cancelled television block known as Adventure into Fear. This conversation is long-lasting and has been at a perpetual standstill, as the page and several other pages designate Adventure into Fear as having been developed for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some eyes examining the conversations and the sources would be very much appreciated. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bumping -- this is a debate that's been going on for several months. A lack of objectivity is hindering it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the AfD in March 2023, there was consensus that entries of this list need to be cited to secondary sources rather than online satellite maps to avoid WP:OR, but people continue to ignore this rule, possibly because the in-page comment at the top of the list is not visible to those using the markup editor in a continent subsection. Should we create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which would be visible in all subsections and the only sourcing-related editnotice in mainspace? ({{RS and OR editnotice}} is intended for use on talk pages of protected articles.) –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]