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  • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Yusuf al-Qaradawi[edit]

User Frankakapta is repeatedly inserting his own original research into the article on Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Despite a very extensive discussion on the talk page in which it has been repeatedly pointed out to him that Wikipedia's guidelines do not allow original research (regardless of how accurate it may be), Frankakapta has continued to insist that his original research (consisting of his own analysis of a primary source) can be added because he believes it to be correct. A secondary source, which makes the same argument that Frankakapta is making, has been suggested and alternative wordings based on this secondary source have been provided. Unfortunately, Frankakapta has reject all alternatives, as well as Wikipedia's guidelines on OR. Can anyone provide advice on this? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

Let it be known that user Frankakapta has also repeatedly asked Hyperionsteel to specifically point out where the violation is, but he (or she) has been either unable or unwilling, preferring instead to maintain it as a general complaint. I can prove my version does not violate the sacred OR guidelines, an easy feat given my entire content is only limited to 3 verifiable facts.
My challengers contributed several claims that needed correction or context. They submit that a panel headed by Qaradawi answered a question on (regarding rape victims) and include an edited quote that is attributed to Qaradawi, all of which was lifted from a Daily Telegraph article in 2004. Unfortunately, these claims clearly contradict the evidence cited by the DT. In an effort to balance this section, they then claimed that officials from made a public denial of the DT report. This balance not only ignored the initial errors, but added to them.
If my challengers would only read their own sources. My version is free of analysis and contains 3 basic facts: [1] The Daily Telegraph claimed the authors were a panel headed by Qaradawi - this can be seen in paragraphs 4 & 7 of DT. [2] That the article DT cites as a source, "Are Raped Women Punished in Islam?", shows a single author named Kamal Badr . (3) Finally, the same article also shows Qaradawi is mentioned only once when Badr paraphrases the scholar's opinion on helping rape victims. I ignored the complaint because Hyperionsteel misread his own citation. That article states it was Muslim Association of Britain that denied DT's claims, not "officials from".
Essentially, in the section about Qaradawi's views regarding rape victims, my challengers insist on propping up the excerpts from DT that masks Badr's work as being Qaradawi's; and they delete any evidence which proves otherwise, even though the evidence is cited in their own source via the DT. ~Frankakapta (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll respond to Frankakapta's statements one at a time:
  • First: Frankakapta states that he has also repeatedly asked Hyperionsteel to specifically point out where the violation is, but he (or she) has been either unable or unwilling, preferring instead to maintain it as a general complaint. This is false. Review the article's talk page: In addition to asking Frankakapta to read Wikipedia's general policies on WP:OR, I have repeatedly cited WP:PSTS, which explicitly states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." For Frankakapta to claim otherwise seems a little disingenuous.
  • Second: Frankakapta states that his version is free of analysis and contains 3 basic facts. Unfortunately, he is incorrect. He is citing these “facts” as a means of refuting the Telegraph article. In other words, he is essentially stating the Telegraph article is incorrect because of the ”facts” he is citing. This likely violates WP:Synth (as well as WP:OR), which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Neither the Daily Telegraph article or the primary source explicitly states that the Telegraph article is incorrect. Rather, it is Frankakapta's analysis (and yes, it is an analysis) that makes the implicit conclusion that the Telegraph article is incorrect.
  • Third: Frankakapta states I ignored the complaint because Hyperionsteel misread his own citation. That article states it was Muslim Association of Britain that denied DT's claims, not "officials from This is false. The IslamOnline article (see: [1] states: “Although the Telegraph claimed "a panel, headed by Qaradawi" made the pronouncement in a fatwa published by, the website's officials denied Qaradawi has anything to do with the edict.” Thus, my edit, which stated that “officials from” denied the Telegraph's claims about Qaradawi is certainly correct in its wording. (Note: the article states MAB also denied these claims and threatened to take legal action). Therefore, for Frankakapta to claim that I misread the source doesn't make any sense – rather, it appears that Frankakapta is the one who misread the source. Hopefully, he will acknowledge his mistake and will no longer "ignore" the article.
  • Fourth: Frankakapta states my challengers insist on propping up the excerpts from the DT that masks Badr's work as Qaradawi's. They delete any evidence which proves otherwise, even though the evidence is cited in their own source, the DT. This is false. I have provided a secondary source that does support the claim that Qaradawi was misquoted (see: [2] and even proposed alternative wording that was based on this secondary source (see edit: [3]. However, Frankakapta seems to believe that this secondary source is insufficient in its analysis, and that only his own interpretation and analysis will be satisfactory. I have repeatedly informed Frankakapta that his original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of how superior he believes it to be to the secondary source provided.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

Thank you Hyperionsteel, this is what I was looking for. I wanted you to elaborate so I can show the contradiction & lack of reason:

  • 1) First, let me say sorry about IslamOnline's officials quip. Apologies mate, don't know how I missed it.
  • 2) By your own admission, I shared what the Daily Telegraph's own evidence shows. Except I didn't deduce Kamal Badr's name by Batmaning an investigation, his name is clearly shown on top as sole author. You call reading an article & it's citation "combining" when the purpose of citation is to verify Wikipedia content. You're not even sure there's a violation because you write "This likely violates" Synth/OR.
  • 3) I disagree for obvious & logical reasons ==> If Fox News quoted Obama by citing a Whitehouse briefing, but the Whitehouse briefing clearly showed the quotation was from John Kerry, would you argue that Fox News article is acceptable but that the briefing was not? Because this is exactly what's happening here. Here's the cast incase you missed it: Fox News = DT; Obama = Qaradawi; Whitehouse brief cited = IslamOnline article cited; Kerry = Badr Frankakapta (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
While you may dislike that I reply, but I am also involved. The problem is that you believe the fatwa of origin on Islamonline (IO) to be a RS, because it is the "truth" as you deduced, but rather it is WP:OR. So it does not matter what it says, unless it has been covered by a secondary WP:RS. While we as individuals may not agree with the rationale of the editing policies of Wikipedia, they nevertheless, do apply. So in brief, DT = RS but IO=OR. It is about sources and WP:NOR. Hope this makes sense. Pray786 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the above account by the reported user, Frankakapta, is both inaccurate and untrue, which the article talk page and the article itself prior to the OR edits also show. Despite being met with bad faith and pressumptions, I have tried to help the user understand editing as per (N)OR, SYNTH and RS several times. Fellow editor, Hyperionsteel was much more patient and responded in great detail to the user 13 times. Such display is rare here IMO. But despite all attempts, the user has not only continued reverting during/after the discussion but also demonstrates lack of understanding and willingness to read and follow the editing policies which is substantiated by the user's persistent reference to "Telegraph's citation" (islamonline aka onislam) as a source, when in fact this primary source falls under NOR. The editing policies have been linked many times in both talk and edit summaries. The user claims censorship[4][5], when this is not the case. The section in reference consisted of 2 paragraphs to begin with; 1) issue covered by the Telegraph and 2) the objection by Islamonline officials and the Muslim Assocciation of Britain (MAB) covered by Unexplicably, the user in their edits keeps deleting the latter section[6] and believes that the balance came after the user's objection/edit. A contradiction and false, as the balance was already present [7] before the OR edits of the user. The user was asked to explain this deletion but in vain. Additionally as of 02:57, 5 April 2014‎ the user abandoned the discussion yet persisted at changing the text back to their OR version (including user's own synthesis of the OR) [8] so contrary to their claim, there is no change and it is not just about 3 sentences. In brief, the user's entire edit relies on self interpretation, and using an OR as source and failing to understand this problem and that they instead need to provide a secondary source/RS to support their view. Pray786 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're being emotional and resorting to personal attacks. I'm ignoring you and dealing w/ HyperionSteel. Frankakapta (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm just reporting the facts. You are in no capacity to judge the state of mind or emotions of mine. That constitutes a personal attack in itself and presumptuousness on your part. It would behoove you to stop attacking editors and assume good faith and stick to the issue. Also can you stop reverting the article back, when your edit does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines? See above for details. That is why we are on this board. Pray786 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankakapta, you have stated that your edit is justified because of "obvious & logical reasons" (i.e. you are calling a spade a spade). Your hypothetical example of Fox News attributing a quote to Obama while the Whitehouse briefing showed the quote was in fact from John Kerry makes the same argument (i.e. it is clear that the Fox News article is incorrect). In real life, this would be acceptable - but this is Wikipedia. Here's the problem: Wikipedia's policy on original research states that OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The primary source in this case (the IO webpage) does not explicitly state that the Telegraph article is wrong (it can't, since the IO webpage was made before the Telegraph article). Yes, anyone reviewing the IO webpage could easily deduce that there are inconsistencies with the Telegraph's article (i.e. the attribution of the quote to Qaradawi as opposed to Badr) and you are essentially claiming that this is the reason you want to include this in the Wikipedia article. The problem is that Wikipedia's policy on OR states "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so...Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." You state that your argument is "obvious & logical" but if it is, then it should be easy to cite a secondary source that makes this point. Your own analysis is an implied (although not explicitly stated) conclusion/argument: The Telegraph article is wrong - Why? because of fact A, fact B and fact C. Likewise, in the hypothetical example you cited, if Fox News quoted Obama inaccurately, then a secondary source (such as CNN, the Huffington Post or The Daily Show) would have pointed this out. However, if a Wikieditor pointed this out on Wikipedia, without citing a secondary source, it would still be considered original research. I'm not denying that this is a clear case of "form over substance," but Wikipedia's policies on WP:OR doesn't allow exceptions for original research that is "obvious & logical." That's why a secondary source that points out the Telegraph's error (such as this one [9]) is needed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Wrong Mr. Hyperionsteel. I've stated my edit is justified because it's right their in the (virtual) print, thanks to the evidence in your own link. Your position happens to be contradictory, accepting while rejecting the same evidence from DT. Frankakapta (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The edit will be justified if you use the material from secondary source. My position is not contradictory - the article in the DT makes a claim, and the information in the secondary source contradicts that claim. Your analysis of the primary source also contradicts the DT article - unfortunately, your analysis is original research, and that is not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of how accurate it may be.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

I am really not familiar with the topic at all, so I must apologise if my fact is inaccurate. If your argument is about this diff[10], I agree with Frankakapta because he did not reach any conclusion per se, he just pointed out the contradiction. A notable wikipedia essay WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources states that editors can claim sources conflict and it is not WP:OR. There is no need to have one reliable source pointing out contradiction in the other source, maybe because it rarely happens in real life. However, with the conflicts at hand, both sources are reliable so it is not to say which one is correct and it is up to the editors to discuss the matter. IMHO in case the conflict cannot be resolved, so Frankakapta version is appropriate. Biglobster (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are partially correct. If two reliable secondary sources contradict each other, then pointing out this contradiction is not WP:OR. However, in this case, Frankakapta is pointing out a contradiction between a secondary source and a primary source using his own analysis - that is original research. WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources states "There are times that a reliable source is simply incorrect, but it is inappropriate to imply or state that is the case without a reference to a reliable source." In other words, you cannot state that: "Source A asserts the town's population as 5,000; however, this is disproven by the following sources and circumstances." If Frankakapta would simply agree to use a reliable secondary source (such as this one [11]) to support his argument that the Telegraph article is wrong, we wouldn't be having this debate. It is Frankakapta's insistence on using his own analysis, rather than the available secondary source, that is the issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC))
Hyperionsteel, your last paragraph implies secondary sources are reliable and primary sources are unreliable, or less reliable. This is untrue so your paragraph has no value. An example would be if secondary source A claims that an article in an academic journal J reports the the results R1 of an experiment, but the journal article actually says something different, R2. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I never stated that Primary sources are unreliable. What I stated was that an analysis of a primary source by wikieditor in order to disprove a secondary source is original research. That's why, in this case, he should use another secondary source (like the one I provided) to support his claim, not his own interpretation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC))
I read my paragraph again and I think my word was inaccurate about that diff. He did not point out contradiction, he just provided a source which contradicts Telegraph and this is very different from saying it out loud in the article that there is contradiction, which will be WP:OR in that case. I agree that the secondary source is preferred, and your secondary source helps making it more NPOV, but unfortunately it is not exactly what Frankakapta is claiming -- the contradiction. The source you provided just tell that there are someone disagree with Telegraph, without conclusion that there are really contradiction and this is a big different. I think everyone here agree that we are having contradiction, and I think the way out is that editors should resolve this contradiction in talk page or somewhere and come to a consensus that either Telegraph or the other source is correct, but not both. Also, taking data directly from primary source is allowed, and it is not an analysis as long as the article content does not advance to the position further than that stated in primary source. Biglobster (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We've tried resolving this issue on the article's talk page. After an extremely long discussion, we are unable to reach a consensus. That's why I posted this topic here for further discussion. But please keep in mind - any interpretation of a Primary source is considered original research - this includes the implicit conclusion that Frankakapta is making by conducting an analysis of the primary source (i.e. Telegraph says A, but the source actually says B = the Telegraph article is inaccurate). Frankakapta's conclusion (that the Telegraph article is wrong) may very well be correct, but Wikipedia's guidelines include a ban on all original research, regardless of how accurate it may be. That's why secondary sources, like the one I suggested, are preferred.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC))
I do not see why the whole paragraph would imply so, though it might due to my English skill. I read it and understand it like it might be very well that Telegraph is right and the other source is wrong. If your main concern is about this implication, then rephrasing it to remove implication might be another way out. Biglobster (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to present alternative wordings of this section that comply with Wikipedia guidelines, but Frankakapta has rejected them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC))
Well then I guess my argument ends here, and problem for now should be reduced to wording problem, not original research. It is how we should present the source Frankakapta provided without implication that which one is right and which one is wrong. I read the diff again and I tend to agree with you that some, but not all, users might think it implies that Telegraph is wrong, so it is better to make it clear in the article. I kindly suggest Frankakapta to consider this too, I understand very much that Frankakapta think Telegraph report was wrong and I really feel strongly that it was, but we have to write it with NPOV in the way that does not have the judging implication as described in Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources. Biglobster (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Boomerang[edit]

A few days ago, I saw that the List of programs broadcast by Boomerang contained absolutely no references, yet described a lot of detail about when this or that cartoon series was shown by the classic cartoon TV network Boomerang. I greatly reduced the information offered in the article because of the NOR problems, and I added a reference to support current programming.

I would appreciate more eyes on that page! The editors who are interested in the topic have been reverting my drastic reduction. They don't seem to see any problem with maintaining a Wikipedia article which is in violation of WP:V. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's heating up over there. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic original research on Bundy standoff[edit]

OO9o9 keeps adding [12]. The Hage case has no connection to the Bundy case but is added to confuse readers into thinking that it affects the Bundy case. The user was warned about it and persists. (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 East Ukraine crisis[edit]

Volunteer Marek added this in what looks like an attempt to blame Russia and personally Vladimir Putin for the events in the eastern Ukraine.

Is it original research? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian troops have been identified in eastern Ukraine. Vladimir Putin is the commander in chief of Russia's army. --Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I closed the AfD as delete, so that the issue is moot now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaked Documents Question at List_of_members_of_the_American_Legislative_Exchange_Council[edit]

The are leaked original documents (digitized) on the website of an advocacy group. An editor has gone through those documents and pulled names of (possible or likely) members from those original documents and used them to add names to this list. Does this constitute impermissable original research? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I would note that the advocacy org hosting these document is biased but that the documents are not in question. They are clearly the internal docs of the target organization. My question is, absent a reliable secondary source (academic/news) writing about these potential members can an editor himself use these docs to find or dig out the names or is this all Original Research? Thoughts? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If the fact is taken directly from the specified primary source without evaluation or analysis so I think it is not WP:OR. In your case, assuming the document is reliable, it is important to see the document and determine whether the fact has been taken directly as it is. For example, if the document is the list of members, so it is quite obvious. However, if the document is signed by e.g. Mr. John with his title, it would be more or less WP:OR. And may I ask why leaked documents are not in question? It does not sound very reliable for me. Biglobster (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dueling polls[edit]

Hi, I have a question about the article "Gun politics in the United States". In this edit, another editor added the following bolded italicized material to a section titled "Security against tyranny":

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny,[1] but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that 60 percent of Americans gun owners own them for personal safety or protection and only 5 percent own them for Second Amendment reasons.[2]

[1]65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013).

[2]Swift, Art (October 28, 2013). "Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today: Second Amendment rights, job with police or military are lower on list". Gallup Inc. Retrieved March 31, 2014. 

I explained at the article talk page that, unlike the Rasmussen reference, the Gallup reference does not say anything about "tyranny" and is therefore very ambiguous about it. Nonetheless, the other editor wants to use this Gallup result to rebut or balance the Rasmussen result. I explained that it's WP:OR to use the Gallup result in that way, since the Gallup reference says nothing about "tyranny" and is thus ambiguous about it. (I am fine with including the Gallup reference elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, and am also fine with including poll results rebutting the Rasmussen result if such a poll result can be found.)

Morever, the bold, italicized material is written is such a way as to deny that the "protection" refers to protection against tyranny, which again seems like WP:OR to me.

I've never been to this Noticeboard before (as I recall), and I hope this question will not be found burdensome. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gallup poll info was added on 31 March 2014 for WP:BALASPS.[13] The sentence/paragraph in question has been reworded since then, but the info has stayed. The last version of the sentence was:
A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny, but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons.
(using the Rasmussen and Gallup sources given above). Then, today, A. removed [14] the Gallup part of the sentence, so what remained was this:
A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny.
His edit summary was, "Per talk page and per WP:OR, removing ambiguous poll material that doesn't mention tyranny explicitly." I disagreed with the removal of the Gallup info, which I explained on the talk-page discussion (also linked above). But rather than simply reverting A's removal, I added it back along with the other Gallup info [15] that he mentioned on the talk page, hoping that would address his concern, and I wrote the edit summary: "add the Gallup personal safety/protection results too, and the 2A results, and let the reader decide."
This simply gives information, relevant in context, from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that your chronology adds anything pertinent to what I already said. As to your last sentence, no, you have phrased (using the word "but") the material so that it denies the "protection" mentioned by Gallup includes protection against tyranny, and of course we cannot determine that one way or the other because the cited Gallup source does not mention tyranny (which is what this subsection of the article is about). If this original research is kept, then I will also include poll results regarding support for the Second Amendment, regardless of whether it mentions tyranny. And we can thus have a subsection that is predominantly not what its header says it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my post didn't seem to you to add anything to the discussion. I thought that it did, or I wouldn't have written it. Anyway, instead of just deleting the material, why not reword it - but without WP:SYNTH? Lightbreather (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving the Gallup info to the subsection on the Second Amendment. That would take care of the Synthesis/Original research problem nicely, and then I can also put a poll result about the popularity or unpopularity of the Second Amendment into that subsection on the Second Amendment. Alternatively, I have just rephrased to rephrase the material to reduce the original research problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a workable compromise in place now, we'll see if it holds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)