Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

 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)

Draft:Environmental issues in Brunei - OR or not?

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 (talk • contribs)

Deleting OR content that appears in large quantity

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)

Adding parts not found in the cited source

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.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

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)

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)

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.

Talk:Far-left politics

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)

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)

Indeterminacy debate in legal theory

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)

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)

This isn't wikilawyering. It's trolling. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Makes sense, I'll go ask them. Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed promotional COI editing by user Zenica87

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zenica87 Polygnotus (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Noonlight Data collection and analysis

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)

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

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe Television Series: Adventure into Fear

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)

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)

Bumping again due to lack of feedback. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

List of satellite map images with missing or unclear data

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 (dc̄) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Treaty of Old Crossing

Browsing around tonight, I arrived at this page from the Red River Valley page. Im not familiar enough with the topic to dive in too far with edits of my own, but section headings in the article of A legacy of fraud, A legacy of self-deception, A legacy of incestuous connections and self-interest and a prominent Conclusions section, all without sources using those terms (and in some cases denigrating sources for NOT reaching those conclusions: [...]are largely understated in most of the literature that has developed around the treaty) makes it seem like someone's class essay being published as OR. Just hoping for some eyeballs. Like I said I don't know enough to be certain myself. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)