Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Extrapolation of information in source[edit]

As per this discussion here, I have concerns that a particular statement in the article is not clearly supported by the source. It seems to have originally been added by someone unfamiliar with the terminology who has misinterpreted the source's use of similar terms. I claim that as the source does not clearly state what is stated in the article then this is original research (and also probably factually incorrect). My main argument though is that as original research, it cannot be included. Another editor claims that it is possible (or even probable) that it is correct and should therefore be included. They don't appear to recognise that such a claim is original research, or that this is grounds for exclusion from an article.

I was wondering if someone could weigh in on the discussion and clarify if this is original research and therefore whether or not it should be removed. (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I still need some assistance with this. The other editor is firmly convinced original research is acceptable and nothing I can say can convince them otherwise. Can someone independent please weigh in on this debate? (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarise the issue:

The article is about the Splashed White marking in horses. The disputed statement says "In the Gypsy horse, [the pattern Splashed White] is called blagdon". What the source actually says is: "The acceptable descriptive terms for the coat colors of the Gypsy Vanner horse are: [...] Blagdon* – Solid color with white splashed up from underneath".

I believe this is original research because Splashed White is not mentioned at all in the source. The source merely describes what the pattern 'blagdon' looks like. It does not state that 'blagdon' is the same as Splashed White. The disputed statement seems to "reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Furthermore, no other evidence to support this conclusion can be found, which is saying something as genetic tests exist for all three Splashed White genes, yet no gypsy vanner has tested positive for any of them. (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I advise reviewers to look at the entire paragraph in context. I updated some sources. The pattern has been visually identified in Gypsy horses and this is verified in genetics textbooks and the article only states what can be verified. What probably has this anon IP editor upset is that the splash gene is occasionally linked to deafness in a few horses, and people get all panicky if their breed is in danger of carrying something bad. But deafness is rare even in splashed white horses (it's a complicated issue, but basically the pattern has to include the ears, and even then it doesn't always cause deafness) Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. My issue is that no proof has been provided for any of these statements, and the article sometimes makes claims which are not actually stated in the given source. I have never mentioned deafness at all, and frankly consider it irrelevant to the argument. Please do not put words in my mouth. Your implication that I have a vested interest in the content of this article is simply incorrect and a distraction from the real issue: this is a matter of fact verification only. (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a few changes in the wake of your original post and today reviewed the paragraph again, updating some material and updating sources. But the sentence you find so objectionable stands. Go read the whole paragraph and look at the sources, you may find your objections are no longer needed. Montanabw(talk) 09:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel at this point I am just repeating myself. The source does not support the conclusions in the statement under debate. It is an extrapolation and a hypothesis, and I maintain this is therefore original research. We are unable to reach an agreement, and so I am asking for someone independent to look into it and make a judgement on whether this is original research, and therefore whether it needs to be removed. (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree we are repeating ourselves. You clearly haven't even re-read the section where the sentence occurs in its entirety. You started with a complaint about the lead, I removed the material in the lead. You claimed a color pattern was something called "Sabino 2", and I explained that it genetically does not exist (at least,not at present). Then you claim that the splash pattern doesn't exist in Gypsy horses, when one of the leading equine coat color geneticists in the world, one who specializes in white patterns associated with the KIT gene, says that it does. The article correctly notes that apparently the Gypsy horse has yet to be tested for the SW-1 gene, but the breed standard clearly says that "blagdon" is a pattern "splashed" up from underneath. The article only quotes the breed standard, there is no SYNTH. So, yes, yo just keep going on and on about OR and SYNTH, when I have clarified the issue for you over and over again, plus went out and did some updating of the article to reflect recent research. You are here seeking third party input. Frankly, so am I. Is anyone out there? Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
We are here... but we tend to avoid commenting when all we see is a continuation of the debate from the talk page ... it is hard to get a word in edgewise when the original combatants are dominating the conversation. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL. I'd say we've each made our case. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, from what is written on WP, "Splashed White" is a pattern linked to a specific genotype. Saying a horse is a "Splashed White" is to say it has a specific genotype that gives it a particular, defined, coat pattern. There is no source cited that says a Gypsy with "Blagdon" markings will have one of the recognized genotypes whose expression in another breed is called "Splashed White". A Gypsy Vanner may have a marking that looks as if "white is splashed on" but that does not mean that it has the specifically defined genotype that breeders call "Splashed White". To represent that the Gypsy Vanner has a particular arrangement of genes just because it *looks* like it does is OR.

TL;DR "Splashed White" is a phenotype of known and defined genotype. "Blagdon" is a phenotype of unknown genotype. To say one is the other is not only OR but factually unsupportable. Jbhunley (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. "Splashed white" as a concept existed long before the genetic test. You are right that "blagdon" is a mere phenotype. But read the article where it is defined by one of the breed associations, and note exactly how it is stated in the article. Please read just Splashed_white#Inheritance_and_prevalence. The controversial bit is in paragraph 4 but the little bit preceding it should give you the context. I think the concerns are addressed. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I missed this comment and did an edit on the article page and left a note on the talk. I apologize for not responding here first. Anyway, I did read the section you mentioned. I also read the other related sources and picked up a horse genetics book to review. The issue is that there seem to be, by my reading, several genotypes that can give the 'Blagdon' patterned coat and that there exist many horses that are 'Blagdons' that do not have any SW genes. (This is from searching the web and finding discussions where people had tested their Blagdon marked Gypseys and and they were negative for SW). To say Blagdon == Splashed White. On the whole I would suggest looking at allow the breeds listed as "Color patterns describes as splashed white but not yet identified by genetic testing.." to make sure they are actually identified as 'Splashed White'. In the case of the Gypsy Vanner breed description "...white splashed up from underneath." describes a pattern that could easily be Sabino or something else. The American Paint Horse Guide to Color Coat Genetics describes 'Splashed White' as "usually makes the horse look as though it has been dipped in white paint. The legs are usually white, as are the bottom portions of the body. The head is also usually white and the eyes are frequently blue". Very different from what Blagdons look like. There might be something out there that says that some Blagdon Gypsy Vanners are may in fact be Splashed Whites but I have only seen that on discussion boards not in any RS. I would suggest for accuracy's sake that you take a look at the other "suspected" Splashed White breeds listed to make sure that the sources say "Splashed White". Inferring equality based upon common adjectives used in a description is OR on WP. You may or may not be right but it is for that very reason that it should not be in WP. JBH (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley)
I reverted that edit and have given a longer answer at article talk. If you read the sources (I made some changes to update the article since this has been raised), you will see that there are yet to be ANY Gypsy horses DNA tested for the Splash genes, we only have WP:RS scientific sources saying that the phenotype has been identified. The article does NOT state (now, nor did it really in the earlier version either) that "blagdon" IS splashed white, but merely that the definition of blagdon given in one of the Gypsy horse breed standards contains the "splashed" language. I was very careful in doing the article update to avoid OR or SYNTH. I have been involved in the writing of nearly all the equine coat color articles on WP, and am trying to keep them up to date. I am willing to discuss this further at the article talk page, as I think everyone here who wanted to comment has. Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flags RFC[edit]

This RFC may of interest of regular editors at this noticeboard. (Please add any comments at the RFC and not duplicate the discussion here.) Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

D'Assas Heureaux[edit]

In related articles about former presidents of the Dominican Republic, Ulises Heureaux and Joaquín Balaguer, there is an argument about Assad Heureaux origin (ancestor). Users Virgrod and Savvyjack2 have been reverting each others and/or adding unreferenced text. Most recently user Virgrod explains thats his argument is under discussion as not a Synth. I have joined this discussion as a member of WP:DOMREP, checking important articles salted with sensitive information. This Noticeboard should help settle the discussion of inclussion of WP:OR in those articles. Thanks, Osplace 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that this and this edits about the person being a Haitian constitute original research.
I also fail to understand why fine details of the ancestry of Ulises Heureaux are also nearly verbatim repeated in the bio of Joaquín Balaguer. IMO one place is enough. -M.Altenmann >t 03:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We still need this discussion to be over, both users are still figthing. The only question unsolved is alleged to be WP:OR. Osplace 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Aryan[edit]

A new editor, Timothycrice (talk · contribs), has been adding material (using his account but also apparently editing logged out) to Honorary Aryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that doesn't discuss the subject of the article. He's now mentioned the subject with this edit, which says:

"First, let us be clear that the term "honorary Aryan" (German: Ehrenarier) itself is not found anywhere in Mein Kampf. Did Hitler change his views after he wrote Mein Kampf? This is an important question, since one can see how contemptuous he was of both the Japanese, as well as anyone who was different from him, at the time he was writing Chapter XI of Mein Kampf, " and then carries on to quote Hitler, although the quotes to not show him using the term 'Aryan' to refer to the Japanese, but to Aryan influence on the Japanese. I've reverted him twice and posted to his talk page with no response. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged his user page and the associated ISPs with 3RR warning. - Location (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

324th Division (Vietnam)[edit]

The article states that the letter "B" in the designation of the division implies "Bắc", which means "North Vietnam". I can't find any source that support this claim, while the user who writes it on the page refuse to give any source. I think this clearly constitutes an OR. Moreover, such information is soundly illogical, as the method of inference fails to explain other similar cases in the VPA, which the designation of a unit contained a letter after a number, i.e. 320A Division (which existed contemporarily with a sister division designated as 320B Division, see Chiến dịch Hồ Chí Minh: Trang sử vàng qua các trận đánh, People's Army Press, 2005, p. 762) or 325C Division.Dino nam (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For background to this complaint please see my earlier complaint on the Admin noticeboard on 10 December [1] regarding User:Dino nam's disruptive, non-RS editing and generally argumentative style on Battle of Cửa Việt and Battle of Thường Ðức and his 3R on 324th Division (Vietnam). This is just a tit-for-tat response from User:Dino nam. It is not my original research, the words that User:Dino nam wishes to delete have been on the page since 2011 and while a CN tag is appropriate deletion at this point isn't. User:Dino nam often relies on non RS such as Nhan Dan (the Vietnamese Army newspaper) and as here something from the People's Army Press, which it has already been established are non RS. I am trying to locate an explanation as to why the Division was called 324B and what the B actually means, without success so far. An Osprey book suggests that the North Vietnamese cloned various Divisions which does accord with User:Dino nam's source above, but there is no evidence that there was a 320A Division alongside the 320B Division or a 324A Division alongside a 324B Division, rather it seems that this was just done to confuse U.S. order of battle analysts, but that, at present is OR Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I just went to take a look at the offending page, and it looks like the phrase has already been removed. Why do you feel that just a tag is sufficient at this point? If there is no evidence that something can be reliably sourced, why should it remain on Wikipedia? --Onefireuser (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Background or not, the statement is unsourced and should, if challenged, be removed. Mztourist presents an argument but it is not based on sources. Baseball Bugs has removed the statement and I think that is proper. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari[edit]

Resolved: OR removed, correct source supplied MLPainless (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reversed (2x) my removal of SYN and OR here. The OR is blatant:

"This person says X is bad. But another source (that does not mention this person) says X is good." The implied conclusion is that the person is wrong.

Just blatant SYN. MLPainless (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm heading out for the night, but I'd encourage folks to read the talk page conversation[2], edit history, etc. There are other issues going on here, but in terms of original research it's pretty cut and dry under WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE that this is assigning due weight to the view expressed by the subject. That is not considered original research as we're weighing what the appropriate sources are saying about the specific claims and not the person making them. In this case, a specific response is not needed from a medical organization for each person who makes a claim that runs against the scientific consensus. The claims themselves are addressed instead when dealing with scientific/medical content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You're "weighing what the appropriate sources are saying"? That is the very definition of OR. MLPainless (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably best to let other folks respond as this point as the purpose of this board is to get input from other folks. I already mentioned on your talk page how NPOV meshes into OR, so I'd let other folks have a crack at it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That content was not created by Kingofaces; it has been there content about this, and stating the scientific consensus on flu shots, since about July. IT has been reviewed by many others including admins, and is fine per WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE and especially WP:BLPFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What is happening to WP? This is a clear example of OR/SYN, and yet even when it's posted to the OR noticeboard there is no action. Is the project losing its integrity? I'm a little shocked. Can an experienced admin comment here please? MLPainless (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PSCI has been policy for a long, long time. and by the way it is my understanding that this board and others are places to get wider discussion from the community; they are not for admin action. Content disputes get worked out in the community via the methods described in WP:DR (which include the use of boards like this one). Behavior issues are addressed at ANI and other admin board like AIV, AN etc and when they get very bad, Arbcom. This is a content dispute, as far as I can see - a dispute about how policy applies to some content. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this looks like synthesis, but given that we can cite a source (entirely appropriate per WP:FRINGE) which gives the response of mainstream science to her claims regarding flu vaccination, such synthesis is unnecessary. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Additionally it has only been half a day since you posted here, and there has been more talk in the appropriate place, the talk page of the article. Beach drifter (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Beach Drifter provided as source that allows the material to be added without OR. I've made the change. MLPainless (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronicles of Eri multiple issues[edit]

An editor has added what appears to be in part an essay to this article about a literary hoax, attempting to show that it is not. It's one of those situations where a new editor doesn't understand our policies and adds OR written in an NPOV fashion, with what sources there are, eg a forum, failing our criteria for sources. I am rarely sure where to bring such problems. This article has several statements in it about Wikipedia itself, eg "Although this may appear persuasive evidence that in usual circumstances might elicit some to reconsider the chronicle, both it and its author had been so roundly calumniated (on spurious grounds) that there is no evidence of any public notice of this or any other point of hard evidence until this introduction here on wiki in midsummer 2014, (and earlier that year in a little visited related website)." "A factor in the general resistance to consider evidence with respect to the chronicle was the reports formally here on wiki and elsewhere claiming it to have been disproven. Wiki claims to follow the Darwinian principle of evolution, allowing all equal access to edit content with a view to enable an erosion of inaccuracies out of its pages. Skeptics of the chronicle are invited to add considered content to the section that follows." "The question of the chronicle’s placement here on wiki as a literary hoax is of some significance as the chronicle claims to double the course of Gaelic history." It also states "A claim is currently made in the academic press that the chronicle has been disproven,[10] however an email request for further detail has proved unsuccessful,". I've reverted once and the author asked for protection of the page at the Teahouse. Dougweller, 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a little confused and frustrated at this sudden outburst of indignation from those who claim to represent wiki. I revived a demand earlier today suggesting I update citations, remove personal points of view, improve links and so on. OK- but that takes time.
Now I am receiving further demands having suffered an outrageous attack on the free flow of information that my page seeks to transmit, simply deleted and replaced by the nonsense my page was written to defend against.- I am not sure, but have some reasons to suspect that these problems are flowing from some of those in wiki who are determined to perpetuate their allegation that the chronicle is a hoax as classed by wiki. A great example of what they describe as neutral point of view [NPOV}. Your evidence please? Throw what they may at my evidence- all I can promise is a record will be kept- the future can judge, and the past cannot be changed- good luck, I think you could be helping without intending to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talkcontribs) 23:13, 22 December 2014‎
You appear to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia articles - they are not forums for "the free flow of information", they are encyclopaedic content, to be based on published reliable sources. If you wish to allege that there is some sort of conspiracy on Wikipedia to misrepresent the Chronicles, at least have the decency to do so on the article talk page - though frankly I doubt that you will get very far, given that irrefutable evidence demonstrates that Wikipedia contributors couldn't conspire to make a cup of tea without splitting into at least three warring factions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to explain to the user on Dougweller's page about Wikipedia's principle of WP:NOR, but it doesn't seem to take. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age, you seem to be a better writer than reader. Please try to internalize our explanations of why Wikipedia isn't fit for your purpose. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC).

Hi as I said I will go back to the page with revisions reflecting your NOR NOP and other general points raised. My concern is that the page my one was replaced with recently takes those problems to unprecedented levels. For example my page illustrated the source scrolls, their location and pedigree which are there for anyone to check and it was replaced by a page claiming there were no source scrolls. This project is of some weight as it alone potentially represents around half the history of the people of the British Isles. Should those intent on censoring public access to the facts surrounding it be allowed to knowingly mislead people on key questions such as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talkcontribs) 06:49, 23 December 2014‎

The version of the page most recently by you was edited because it violated Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the original research of contributors. And cut out the crap about 'censorship' - this is a private website, and we are under no obligation whatsoever to provide a platform for your personal opinions. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will be obliged to do so in a way that complies with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a literary fraud, especially the title page, however Conner might have incorporated some Irish oral traditions into his work. So the whole thing might not be fiction.

"In 1822 O'Connor published ‘The Chronicles of Eri, being the History of the Gael, Sciot Iber, or Irish People: translated from the Original Manuscripts in the Phœnician dialect of the Scythian Language.’ The book is mainly, if not entirely, the fruit of O'Connor's imagination."

Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 41. O'Connor, Roger

"All we have then is O' Connor's translation into English of whatever material he had. It is possible he took down oral tradition."

"The question remains, however where did O' Conner get his material. Allowing for his pretentiousness, his foolish exaggerations, he could hardly have imagined the entire book. If one compares the silly claims of his Preface with the sober recital of the text, one finds it hard to believe that both came from the same author."

"Before closing, however, notice must be taken of Roger O' Conner's (Cier-Rige) book, Chronicles of Eri, published in 1822. The text was re-issued in 1936 by L. Albert, editor, under the title Six Thousand Years of Celtic Grandeur Unearthed. Albert was disappointed with the reception given the book and in 1938 issued extracts relating to the Milesian Invasion (The Buried Alive Chronicles of Ireland). He also included a Roll of the Kings, a Commentary, and as an Appendix, certain 'Jewels of Ancient Wisdom' selected from the Chronicles of Eri.

Neary. M. (1973). "The True Origin of the Sons of Mil". Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society. 18(1): 69-83. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bizarrely "irish chief" seems to think he/she created the chronicles of eri page. No. It was added long before they arrived. They then removed the Macalister quote and uploaded their own personal essay from their website. So they were the actual vandal. They're now though calling the poster(s) who removed their essay the vandal. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"For example my page illustrated the source scrolls, their location and pedigree which are there for anyone to check and it was replaced by a page claiming there were no source scrolls." there are no source scrolls. O'Connor never showed them. So are you saying you are his relative or something and have come into possession of them? Obviously not. So your essay doesn't count as any evidence. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The page 'chronicles of eri' has again been replaced by falsehoods regarding source scrolls for the second time in 24 hours. The former page illustrated the source scrolls, gave a full provenance of their location, condition and so on and yet their existence is still called into question here and again displaced by disinformation on them on the page 'chronicles of eri'.

The last contributor writes in bold O'Connor never showed them, yet this is easily shown in error -those interested can check out the page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Chronicles_of_Eri where this ridiculous argument is pursued with the person responsible for displacing the page containing evidence of them with a claim they do not exist. Visitors will be able to see here how very simple points of provenance in the former page 'chronicles of eri' [linked by an earlier contributor] are treated.

In view of the evident determination of so many to deny such obvious and unequivocal evidence, there would seem little point in pursuing any more contentious points on the 'chronicles of eri'. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no point whatsoever in you pursuing anything that does not involve compliance with the Wikipedia policy that requires content to be verifiable according to published reliable sources. We aren't interested in your 'evidence', and won't be unless and until it receives recognition amongst qualified historians. This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't provide evidence or link to the scrolls/manuscripts. The preface or title page of the Chronicles of Eri states:







These "original manuscripts" were never produced by O'Connor. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it. It does not matter how much evidence you can present for your ideas. It does not even matter if your ideas are right. All that matters is whether they have been vetted by the scholarly community. That's what WP:NOR means, and it's a fundamental Wikipedia policy that is not going to be changed for your benefit.
So continuing to show us your arguments will get you nowhere. Show us the published sources making your arguments. --Yaush (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)