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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Membership of Christian churches

Is this edit original research? It indicates the proportion of Christians who are members of the first two Christian churches mentioned in Christianity and homosexuality and shows that not all the members support their church's teaching on homosexuality. It has been objected to and reverted on the grounds of being original research, but the objector has not specified the basis for the claim of original research. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Esoglou's false claim, I pointed out at the beginning that the sources don't talk about homosexuality at all; I also noted that many people in that percentage hold the opposite view and that we may not falsely imply that they oppose homosexuality when in reality they are perfectly okay with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A source does not have to talk of homosexuality to indicate the proportion of Christians in the two churches. The edit objected to, far from implying that the members necessarily support their church's teaching, actually shows that not all do. Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And the reason this is an OR issue is because a source does need to talk about homosexuality in order to belong in an article on Christianity and homosexuality. Or perhaps we could also write that the churches which oppose homosexuality have long histories of persecutions of minorities and attempts to impose their religious beliefs on others - Spanish Inquisition, conquistadors, Kishinev pogrom...I'm sure you'd see nothing wrong with that, as it can be sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• That text is not only original research but it misrepresents the membership of the churches as being 100% in agreement, which is of course wrong. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The text explicitly says the contrary, stating that the membership is not 100% in agreement! Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Roscelese and Binksternet. The material seems to be to have been added to make a point that Catholics and Orthodox Christians make up the majority of Christians, rather than to add anything useful about the topic of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The point that the churches that "make up the majority of Christians" have a common declared position on the matter adds something decidedly useful to an article not on homosexuality but on "Christianity and homosexuality" and is very relevant. Esoglou (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Apart from these editors who have been involved in arguments on homosexual issues, is there no neutral editor who will comment on the admissibility in an article on Christianity and homosexuality of a sourced statement on the fact that the view that homosexual acts are immoral is the teaching of the churches to which, even if not all their members accept the teaching, belongs far the greater part of Christianity? Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I would qualify for that... This isn't really a question of Original Research (the information is supported by a source)... it's a question of relevance. The information appears in the article without clear context. There is nothing in the text of the article that explains why membership numbers are relevant... or to put it another way: if it is relevant, we need additional statements that makes that relevance clear. And those statements need to be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear reply. Esoglou (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

User 1flyguyrob has created a section called "Female empowerment" on the Nicki Minaj article, and has added various unreliable sources that argue as if the BLP has widely supported the portrayal and interests of women. The user initially claimed that the BLP was a feminist, but has since removed this claim after I prompted him/her to do so. The section features various quotes put together to create almost an argument - that the BLP empowers and supports females. Although the BLP has commented on how females should be portrayed, the editor has chosen to represent this strongly and created a section based on original research. As to avoid WP:3RR, could an administrator look into this? I have spoke to the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (Talk:Nicki Minaj#feminist section) Jennie | ☎ 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical Positivism Criticism

The Criticisms section of the article on Logical Positivism contains the sentence "Another problem was that universal claims ("all ravens are black") are problematic in terms of verification." which I consider to be original research. A source is given, but the source does not support the statement. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but it has not lead to an agreement. I hereby request additional input in order to build consensus on the matter.

My view is that, while the statement universal claims are problematic in terms of verification is supported by the source, the supposition that this is a problem for verificationism goes beyond what is written in the source. In WP:NOR it says "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;" I do not think that the statement under question is directly and explicitly supported by the source. I think that, if you read the source carefully, you will agree with me. Note that when the source talks about "a number of difficulties" and "a serious problem" it is no longer talking about universal claims.

I believe that Machine Elf's view is that the statement should not be eliminated because it is supported by the source. I do not think he has read the source carefully and has, therefore, misunderstood it. This is evidenced by the fact that, when asked for direct reference to the statements in the source that support his contribution, he referenced statements which are not related to universal claims. This may not be the source of the disagreement, but it is, nonetheless, my guess at its origin.

The talk page discussion has the title Invalid Criticism of Verificationism. Its scope is larger than what I am addressing here, however, beginning with my 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC) comment, it only discusses the issue I just described. Rectipaedia (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 10 August 2012 (→‎‎Criticisms: Removed unsourced material.)

• 1st revert: User:Rectipaedia 06:27, 21 August 2012 (→‎‎Criticisms: Removed unsourced material.)
• 2nd revert: User:Rectipaedia 20:43, 21 August 2012 (Undid revision 508425660 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk)) 14+ hours
• 3rd revert: User:Rectipaedia 08:53, 22 August 2012 (Undid revision 508572440 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) Removed material not supported by source.) 12+ hours (1+ days)
• 4th revert: User:Rectipaedia 19:56, 22 August 2012 (Undid revision 508601801 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk)) 11+ hours (1.5+ days)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Rectipaedia#Tendentious POV pushing and edit warring 11:43, 22 August 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Logical positivism#Invalid Criticism of Verificationism 00:11, 23 August 2012

Comments: Prior to the 4th revert, User:Rectipaedia responds (19:50, 22 August 2012) to another user's request on the article talk page to “suggest a more refined wording rather than warring to remove entirely what now looks to be a properly sourced statement”:

“No, I am not nitpicking over the precise wording. I agree with your interpretation of the source, but I don't think you have read Machine Elf's statement carefully enough. … I am not disputing that universal claims are problematic in terms of verification. I am disputing that this fact itself is a problem for verificationism. … I would simply reword his statement as "Universal claims ("all ravens are black") are problematic in terms of verification." or "The verification principle renders universal claims meaningless." if it weren't for the fact that these statements would not belong in the criticisms section because they are not criticisms.” (emphasis added)

Rather than simply dropping the "ism" suffix, User:Rectipaedia opts for “tendentiously warring to also erase the part you aren't even contesting”, then attempts to solicit a 4th opinion here, (22:08, 22 August 2012), falsely claiming: “There has been some discussion on the talk page, but it has not lead to an agreement.” Apparently, we all agree it's properly sourced. But, continuing to WP:PUSH by splitting hairs over an "ism", User:Rectipaedia goes on to qualify that agreement: “I do not think that the statement under question is directly and explicitly supported by the source.” Although User:Rectipaedia characterizes it as “Machine Elf's statement”, devoid of context, I simply paired down the original “offending material” to simple statements that are easily verifiable… As Britannica notes,^[1] positivists abandoned this view… perhaps it's a joke? The primary and secondary literature provide ample verification that there's a problem with verificationism.^[2]—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I do not agree that the statement is properly sourced. I am not splitting hairs over an ism. The sentence does not even contain any isms for me to drop. I have removed the part of the sentence that I do not contest because the part that I do contest removes its relevance to the Criticisms section of the article. My point is that the source does not characterize the meaninglessness of universal statements as a problem. This characterization has been invented by some past editor who did not cite any sources.

With regards to your digressive points: 1) I am not seeking just a 4th opinion; I am seeking consensus. 2) By characterizing the statement as "Machine Elf's statement" I only meant it as a convenient label. I thought the fact that you introduced it in its current wording was reason enough to call it yours. There was no intent to mislead. 3) The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry and the book, Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance, do not mention universal claims.

Since Machine Elf does not appear to understand my point, I will try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can: The principle of verificationism says that any statement which cannot be verified empirically and is not a logical tautology is meaningless. This renders all kinds of statements meaningless. Examples include metaphysical and spiritual statements such as those about God, the after-life, etc. It also renders universal statements meaningless. One cannot verify certain statements about the past or the future. However, I do not know of any source that goes on to characterize this as some kind of a problem with the principle. Just as I don't know of any source that says that the meaninglessness of statements about God is a problem. Characterizing a consequence of the principle as a problem with the principle is a quite a leap. It is analogous to saying "A problem with Einstein's theory of special relativity is that it does not allow objects to accelerate beyond the speed of light." and placing this under the criticisms section. The fact that is being characterized as a problem is true and can be verified with sources. There are sources that say that objects cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. But there are no sources that say that this is a problem with Einstein's theory of special relativity.

The only relevant point on which we all agree is that the verification principle renders universal statements meaningless. But this is not what I am contesting. What I am contesting and for which a source has not be given (and which the given source does not support) is that this is a problem with the verification principle. Machine Elf has given sources which mention problems with the verification principle. But none of these problems are the one expressed in the statement under question. Not only do I think the statement is unsourced, but I also think it not true. I doubt a supporting source even exists. Please do not mischaracterize this disagreement as one over wording. I am trying to make it as a clear as possible that I disagree with the meaning of the statement and, because it is not supported (in any way, explicitly or implicitly) by the source, I think it should be removed until a source which supports the statement is provided. Rectipaedia (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue has been settled. Cesiumfrog has provided a source which supports the statement. Rectipaedia (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Widespread cases that appear to be Original Research

In articles such as Adherer and Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) (and many many others), editors have added content stating that the monster has appeared in other game publications. Is it original research to claim that a monster appearing in a Pathfinder/Necromancer game sourcebook is the same creature as appeared in Dungeons and Dragons game sourcebook when the claim is based only on the fact that the monster descriptions are similar for use in similar role-playing games? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that unless it is a game by the same publisher (TSR/Wizards) that the assumption it is supposed to be the exact same creature is original research. Even if the monster name is a new creative facet created by TSR here, its reuse in any other work is not 100% assurance its meant to be the same creature/species. There might be very obvious cases, but unless it's crystal clear, we can't assume that. My gut, knowing of past D&D monster article discussions, is that these are attempts to grab at some type of notability showing "reuse" of the creature in other role-playing systems. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that state that the monsters in question have appeared in other game publications?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

None that I am aware of or have been included in the articles as sources. All that has been used is the game sourcebooks themselves. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue here of course is encapsulated in "None that I am aware of". This is not a case of OR but one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Web Warlock (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, none that I am aware of based on my searches and none that have been provide during several AfDs and long discussions on the D&D project board. And so while I cannot definitively say "No, none exist", I have good reason to believe that none currently exist. Web Warlock, are YOU aware of any such reliable sources that make such a claim? All that would need to happen is that you provide such sources and that question will be answered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the fact that the use of similar fantasy role-play tropes in multiple games is not original research. In fact, it's specifically endorsed by the Open Gaming License System Reference Document. Given that you've previously been engaged in questions about independence and the SRD, I find your asking this question here somewhat curious. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

duh - a company can absolutely be completely related to another company via licensing and other agreements that remove any question of independence yet that doesnt mean that when that company publishes something about myBALL it is writing about the BALL had been written about by the company to which it is related. We can make assumptions, but making assumptions is EXACTLY what WP:OR prohibits ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet, in this RSN thread, you're arguing that these same connections, which you claim here to be OR, are so close that they imperil the independence of these same sources. Your Wikilawyering and WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you have actually read what i wrote. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with Coatrack tag on Faithful Word Baptist Church

A coatrack tag has been added to Faithful Word Baptist Church, a very small church that has been labelled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In looking for what any and all reliable sources stated I was only able to find so much and mainly tied to several news incidents:

• The hate group designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center
• The churches pastor, in a sermon "Why I hate Barack Obama," that he prays for the death of the president
• KNXV-TV noted the day after the sermon a member of the church "showed up outside of the Phoenix Convention Center toting an AR-15 assault rifle" and a pistol when President Barack Obama spoke.

I'm interested in getting the coatrack tag removed as I feel it indicates we are somehow suppressing or adding information that is not about the group. In asking the editors who support the tag they are convinced this is a coatrack but have been unable to show anything has been added that doesn't belong or that anything is missing. It seems to be a circular discussion so some uninvolved opinions would be appreciated, at least by me. If it is a coatrack what is the way forward to improving it, if it really isn't then what is the path for removing the tag? Any help appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Marian persecutions

There is an Observations section in the Marian persecutions article that sounds like someone's personal opinions, like it came from a term paper or something like that. Does that kind of thing belong in Wikipedia? 70.235.86.92 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Ideally, it would be cleaned up, rewritten from scratch if necessary, and sourced, but it may be beyond the pale. My suggestion: remove anything that's clearly personal opinion or looks implausible or like an extraordinary claim, then leave a note at Talk:Marian persecutions that you intend to remove the rest of the unsourced content if reliable sources aren't provided within a reasonable interval. During the interval, source and copyedit any salvageable parts, if there are any (I have my doubts). Then, if no one comes forward to fix it, out it goes. Rivertorch (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bands and paid advertising...

Hi guys - I normally hang out at COIN, and as a result got involved with an issue at The_Kluger_Agency, which has largely been resolved, but we are left with a disagreement about if paragraph is OR or not - can I get some opinions over at Talk:The_Kluger_Agency#Next_Paragraph? Thanks Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to badger - but can someone recommend a good place to go to get a second/third opinion on this? Fayedizard (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal

An editor is inserting grandiose claims into an article that appear to fail basic verification, and thus seem to be OR: [3]. I thought extra opinions would be useful on the talk page: Talk:Sorcha_Faal. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong - citing WADA Code

Is the material reverted here original research, or somehow inappropriate, because it cites a primary source (as is claimed in the revert's edit summary)?

I'm citing the WADA Code in general, and the section on hearings in particular, where it explains that an athlete's failure to challenge charges that he violated anti-doping rules means he waives his right to a hearing on the matter, to augment cited secondary sources that say the same thing. It seems like a perfectly appropriate use to me, of course, but Frank (talk · contribs) disagrees, apparently simply because I'm citing a primary source. I've already spent an inordinate amount of time trying to resolve this with him, first at Talk:Lance_Armstrong#2012_USADA_charges, then at Talk:Lance_Armstrong#Revert.3F.3F.3F_Getting_the_facts_right, and am now seeking an uninvolved outside view (ideally someone who does not feel strongly about the Lance Armstrong case one way or another) to help us resolve this. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly adding original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material to the Sexual intercourse article

User Oxycut is a fairly new user who doesn't seem to yet grasp Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Besides not understanding WP:UNDUE, he continues to add unsourced information about non-human animals engaging in fingering and strap-on dildo use, suggesting that it's WP:NPOV, despite those two behaviors in particular being human behaviors only, and he has added this partially unreliably-sourced and irrelevant material about slut-shaming.

See User talk:Oxycut#Zoophilia in the Sexual intercourse article, where I told him: Like I stated, zoophilia is rarely ever referred to as sexual intercourse. This makes no difference to the fact that most sexual intercourse takes place between non-humans because there are more non-humans than there are humans. I've had to revert you again. See what I stated in that edit summary. Firstly, you linked "human." That is WP:OVERLINKING because "human" is such a common word, one that doesn't need to be linked to for readers to understand what we mean. Secondly, you added "of the same or differing species" to the line that is talking about fingering and strap-on dildo use, which are human behaviors. We go by WP:Reliable sources here and, seeing as fingering and strap-on dildo use are human behaviors, the sources are speaking of humans. Which leads me to my next point -- the article is mostly about humans, as the top of the article states, referring readers to the Animal sexual behaviour article for sexual intercourse in other animals. The article is mostly about humans because the term sexual intercourse is usually reserved for humans and we have the Animal sexual behaviour article for non-human sexual activity. Furthermore, most non-humans do not engage in a variety of sex acts. As the fourth paragraph of the article states: "Sexual intercourse between non-human animals is more often referred to as copulation; for most, mating and copulation occurs at the point of estrus (the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle)..." This paragraph also mentions how sexual intercourse bonds some non-human animals by stating, "Like humans engaging in sex primarily for pleasure, this behavior in the above mentioned animals is also presumed to be for pleasure, and a contributing factor to strengthening their social bonds.", which takes care of your wanting that bond to be mentioned. Besides that, it is mentioned lower in the article, both in the Bonding section and In other animals section. And, finally, adding "human" before the words "college students" makes no sense at all because there are no non-human college students.

Since then, he has also added this unsourced tidbit, and this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The caption to the image that Oxycut added was a gross violation of WP:BLP. I've left a warning on his talk page. If he continues to act like this, he is likely to be reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The image arises from a reactive campaign against the condemnation of sexual promiscuity— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Thank you for the revert, AndyTheGrump. Like I stated elsewhere, I also don't think that English is this user's first language. But either way, he needs some serious WP:Mentoring. I can't at all figure out why he added the word "human" in front of "college students," for example. As stated, it simply makes no sense. I was thinking about reporting him to ANI because his editing reflects WP:Competence issues, but, since the matter was mostly an original research/unsourced matter, I decided to bring it here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Sexual intercourse for comments addressed about the development of the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])