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Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.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

Enochian

I need someone to review the situation at Enochian. Another editor keeps adding stronger statements than the sources actually support. For example, a source reconstructs the possible Elizabethan pronunciation of this language. The editor titles the corresponding table "Dee's pronunciation" when the source never actually makes that claim, but rather the weaker claim that the table probably represents what the language sounded like to Dee. He is also repeatedly adding the category 'constructed languages', but when asked to back that up, cannot provide a source that makes that statement, instead providing definitions of the term, and claiming that is enough to support the category. Any eyes and editors willing to point out his error in understanding what synthesis is would be appreciated. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will look, but when posting to this Noticeboard, kindly let us know if you've already reached an impasse on the talk page of the article in question. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I took a glance at the talk page, and I found this sample of your work: "What we don't need is aggressive and sloppy editors like yourself. It's you who don't belong on WP. Why don't you go back into semi-retirement? Better yet, make it full retirement." I'm afraid I don't care to get much past that. Sorry I can't help. Best of luck in getting somebody else to assist in improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Olympedia

Is Olympedia, a site containing statistical data that has not been subject to analysis, a primary source? My assumption is yes, but additional input would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, it is not a primary source. The site says that the information summarized was complied from primary sources by the panel that runs the site. The panel's membership is published on the site, and a number of them are profiled on Wikipedia. The head of the panel Bill_Mallon is a widely-published expert on Olympics history, and so I think that this site would qualify as a reliable, secondary source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • One caveat to the above comment. It is, however, a self-published source, even if by an subject-matter expert, so it should not be used as a source in a WP:BLP.Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion at WP:RSN about whether it is a self-published source in a few days, as that seems to be an important question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: I am struggling to see how it is secondary; they've grouped a number of primary sources together in a single database, they've attempted to confirm that these sources are correct, but they haven't done any further work on them. It seems to suggest that it is still a primary source, although a reasonably reliable one.

It would seem to suggest that combining multiple primary sources together makes them a secondary source, or verifying the accuracy of a primary source makes it a secondary source, but neither of these are true; two primary sources placed together are still primary sources, while a witness account that has been verified as correct is still a primary source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've got to disagree, and I think it is a mischaracterization of the source to describe it as simply consisting of compiled data not subject to analysis by the authors. Clearly, there are biographies which contain commentary and analysis of the athletes' accomplishments, and information that has been indexed and cross indexed and compiled in ways that would not be included in primary sources. It is clearly a secondary source to my reading. Perhaps others will opine, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of traffic on this Noticeboard, so maybe not. Banks Irk (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

True, I had forgotten there were some that received a brief commentary and analysis; I would agree that the commentary and analysis is a secondary source. However, for the ones that did not receive commentary and analysis, and for the statistics itself within those that did, I would it a primary source. Perhaps a better classification would be that the commentary and analysis is secondary, but the rest of the site is primary? BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it might also be appropriate to open an RFC on this question, given the lack of traffic on this board and the fact that I believe we would benefit from more than two opinions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, would be good to get opinions from experienced users on this issue. It recently came up for me too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a primary source. It has been subject to no secondary analysis at all. It is raw data. For the record I also think US census data reports are primary sources. They should never be the only point on an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What to do when OR conclusively debunks RS?

I would like to draw attention from more editors to the article Fred Bonine. As discussed on its talk-page, many of the (reliably sourced!) factual claims in the article are almost certainly false. At present, however, the evidence of this is basically limited to a single blog-post. I hope that some further experienced editors will take a look and help figure out what to do about the situation. Thanks. (Not watching this page, feel free to ping.) --JBL (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We know WP:CITOGENESIS occurs, and if a consensus of editors reasonably agree that all RSes on a topic have either pulled information from one bad source and/or from WP using that one bad source, we should strive to eliminate that. But that should be a major discussion and evaluation by editors. In the case where the information is only coming from a single blog post and not corroborated from other RSes, that's an easy case to consider the blog source tainted and work to eliminate content from it. --Masem (t) 13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, and this thread is my attempt to bring more editors to the article, to have that more major discussion. (The good information is in the non-RS blog-post; the false information is in various RS used in the article.) --JBL (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

When we say a source is generally reliable we don't assume it's always reliable or correct. If an unreliable source or OR makes a clear and convincing argument why the RS is wrong then we should treat that specific article/reference as unreliable for that fact/claim. I agree with Masem that the argument needs to be strong enough to convince a consensus of editors. This would be best in cases where there is a logical flaw in the RS claim (say a claim that Abraham Lincoln traveled from Springfield to NYC in 12 hours, something not possible in Lincoln's time). It would be much harder to show if we have to rely on a non-RS for fundamental facts (RS says Lincoln was in NYC on 1 May, blog says he was in Springfield on that day). Springee (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I am hoping that, rather than giving superficial 30,000-ft responses, a few experienced editors will be interested in digging into the particular details of this situation, in order to help form a consensus of what to do. The relevant talk-page is Talk:Fred Bonine. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would suggest creating discussion regarding what facts are in question either on the article page or perhaps RSN. I briefly looked at the talk page and aside from a run time I'm not sure I really get the specific issue. Springee (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly, thanks Springee for the further feedback. Subsequent editing has somewhat patched up the situation (now a bunch of dubious claims are attributed as claims, rather than stated as fact) but I will try to put together a short summary on the talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Sacrifice (Oates novel)

I'm working on The Sacrifice (Oates novel) after a failed GA nomination. I have a few questions about OR and SYNTH in articles about novels.

• Is it improper synthesis to include a "Setting" section with information about the novel's historical setting, if the sources used for that section don't mention the novel?
• Is it improper synthesis to summarize the critical reception of a novel, e.g. It received mixed to negative reviews from professional critics?

-- Ruбlov (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The second question is very interesting. I would say it is OR under a strict reading. In practice it's done very widely, and is relatively harmless, but it's not a crazy thing to nitpick in the course of a GA review. Ideally we would be able to cite a secondary source that summarizes the overall critical reception of a work, but these often aren't easy to find (especially for recent works, where you might have to wait until later for people to write retrospective accounts of the work or author). A lot of articles about movies, television, and video games get around this by leading with aggregate scores from a site like Metacritic (which is sort of a primary source, but which is fine to cite with in-text attribution). FWIW, I actually had one of these synth-y summaries in an article I wrote about a novel, which I ended up removing in the course of having it reviewed for GA - and I think the article was better for it. Colin M (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Mythology of Benjamin Banneker

This article could use some serious attention. See e.g. the section Mythology of Benjamin Banneker#Seventeen-year cicada. Certainly there is enough well sourced material for an article, but there seems to have been a substantial expansion here based on copious original research. I would prefer that any efforts to trim this article be a community effort rather than mine alone, since I expect there will be pushback from those who have put so much effort into adding this original research in the first place. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, I now see that the editor responsible for the vast majority of this content was recently indeffed (Special:Contributions/Corker1), so perhaps there is hope that an overhaul can be accomplished without too much unpleasantness. Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war at DNA history of Egypt over possible OR

Here.[1] The original text was: In 2012 a few autosomal and Y DNA markers of the 20th dynasty mummies of Ramesses III and another mummy "Unknown Man E" believed to be Ramesses III's son Pentawer were analyzed by Albert Zink, Yehia Z Gad and a team of researchers under Zahi Hawass, then Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt. Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies. using the Whit Athey's haplogroup predictor, the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a (E-M2) was predicted.

The IP added: However, entering Ramesses III's STR markers into nevgen Haplogroup predictor predicts E1b1b. This certainly looks like OR to me. If others agree, I'll ask for protection.

References

Doug Weller talk 13:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, entering Ramesses III's STR markers into nevgen Haplogroup predictor is clearly a report on original research. Generalrelative (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree likewise.WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

NYC express bus reduced fare

I'm trying to provide a source for the amount of the reduced fare for New York City express buses, for New York City transit fares#Base fares, without violating WP:PRIMARY.

The MTA website states:

• The base fare for local transit is $2.75; for express buses, $6.75. https://new.mta.info/fares
• Reduced fares are half of the base fares: for example, the reduced fare for local transit is $1.35. https://new.mta.info/fares/reduced-fare

So one might think that the reduced fare for express buses is $3.35, as the article currently states:

• Half of $6.75 is $3.375, but that fare amount doesn't make sense;
• $1.35 is not half of $2.75 either. It appears MTA rounded the fare down to the next 5-cent increment.

But that is interpreting the primary sources, prohibited by WP:PRIMARY. I can't find any good secondary sources on the fare amount either. I have no reason to doubt the fare amount the article currently shows, but as it stands it's not properly sourced, so I slapped a Template:Failed verification tag for the time being (because https://new.mta.info/fares is cited for express fares).

My question is: Is my thinking correct, and is using the MTA website as the source in this way impermissible? Can the fare amount nevertheless stand as it is, unsourced? And a purely academic (for now) question: If the base fare for express buses were $8.00, would the MTA website support a conclusion that the reduced fare is $4.00? TroyVan (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peng Shuai: 'Suspicion of forced disappearance' in intro

Keepers of RfC did not address the issue of WP:SYN. Even sources advanced by supporters for the most part do not link (A) Peng Shuai with (B) forced disappearance per its definition. Editors have interpreted sources that write about A and B without associating them as RS for linking A and B, amounting to WP:OR in the intro of a WP:BLP. CurryCity (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The RfC concluded as follows: There is clear consensus among participants that the words "suspected forced disappearance" should remain in the lede. Most of the support comes from WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, with the article dedicating several paragraphs to the topic. Another point raised was whether this should be said in Wikipedia's WP:VOICE, and those supporting the sentence said there are more than enough reliable sources that agree with the statement to justify the lack of attribution. Also note that one of the disagreeing editors, User:Hans Otto Kroeger, was banned for WP:NOTHERE. FobTown (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue of WP:SYNTH was never addressed. Almost no RS offered linked Peng with "forced disappearance". In general, most sources do not. Even where they might have discussed disapperances of other people, but they don't link the two nor attribute anyone who did. It's this added association by WP editors that's OR and problematic. CurryCity (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

J. T. Edson's "female fight fetish"

I think that the "Female fight fetish" from J. T. Edson's page violates Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't cite any sources, and it implies that Edson was a sexual pervert or something. I actually deleted this section yesterday, on a different IP address, but it got reverted by User:Emir Shane. 192.107.137.243 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just opened an RfC in the talk page for the article. 192.107.137.243 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yee, that entire section is crap, tbh. IF it can be reliably sourced that it was a consistent theme in the subject's novels, sure, a section would be justified, but don't need a laundry list of every single pievce of work that contains it. Just a prose description of the topic, with 2-3 examples. The whole "fetish" angle is a no-go, absent strong sourcing. The IP is correct here. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@User talk: 192.107.137.243 I see you've started a discussion here. I didn't revert you edit without any reason, your section blanking was looking fairly suspicious on my radar. I agree that IP users partake in constructive edits, but clearing a whole section and not justifying it in form of a edit summary like you did is a red flag. That's why I reverted it. Anyways, at this point I agree that you were right in deleting that section, but I'll give you one suggestion, from next on, please justify your edits in form of an edit summary. And why don't you create an account? That way your edits will be saved and it will be easier for Patrollers to distinguish from vandalism. Emir Shane (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Backrooms

This article is a somewhat of a specific subtopic of Creepypasta; as you would imagine with such a topic, there's a lot of questionable sourcing verging on WP:OR. Quite a bit of the article is based on this article, from a blog. There's currently a discussion on Talk:The Backrooms regarding images sourced from a Backrooms wiki; my contention is that sourcing images from a user-created wiki verges into WP:OR territory, but it would be good to get more input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Just so you know, I don't object to the removal of the image, I'm just trying to understand the policy you're citing behind it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sourcing, and it's pretty much all blogs and personal newsletters. Is there any actual sourcing to show this is notable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a little borderline. I think there's a mention in Newsweek, and BoingBoing has an aricle with a bit more depth, but a large part of the article relies on sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS. I've just tagged them for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and the "logo" is definitely WP:OR. The image of an artist's depiction is fine, since it matches the actual description, and the images used in the sources, but the logo is just made up by a wiki user. Using that would be like using this image in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Also, that article has plenty of OR in it too. I hate how we handle coverage of fiction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: As the creator of the article, the Backrooms IS a notable subject. Except for WP:ABOUTSELF, sources here do have proper editorial supervision (paragraphs on RPS, Dazed, Screen Rant just to name the notable ones). Plus, the article itself is at 39th place on WP:WPIC/PP, so even if it wasn't notable someone would create an article about it. As for the OR, I thought it'd be fine to include the Backrooms Wiki logo, given that SCP Foundation is a good article and does the same thing (but I guess that article talks about the Wiki itself, so it's fine). Wetrorave (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Philip Johnson's legacy

Architect Philip Johnson, director and trustee of the Museum of Modern Art and a former journalist, had a history of advocating for Nazi Germany and excluding non-white artists from exhibitions and collections. His article contains OR, synthesis and just plain errors that are directed at criticisms of his work and legacy. This has been previously noted by Lockley at Talk:Philip Johnson#Categories, and I now join their observations:

• WP:SYNTHESIS of sources twenty years apart: [2]
• Synthesis, WP:OR and usage of unverifiable source, meant to contradict a statement on Johnson's legacy (which I've removed as too broad [3]): [4][5][6][7][8]
• False attribution: [9]

These and other changes keep getting reverted. I've attempted discussion at User talk:Modernist#Philip Johnson and Talk:Philip Johnson#Non-arbitrary break, but to little avail. Community input needed. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi @François Robere: and thank you for pursuing this issue. Yes. There's a pattern of objective facts that say Philip Johnson was not only a fascist but an unmistakable, loud, active, evangelizing fascist whose activities drew the attention of law enforcement. His FBI file and Johnson's own writings make that clear. Language in the article is being persistently softened or removed to give him more credit than he deserves. This goes for small matters -- whether he was "inducted" or "drafted" for instance; he certainly did not voluntarily enlist -- and larger issues. The worst issue I see is characterizing this period as a brief youthful error, an "infatuation", when in fact Johnson promoted white-supremacist anti-Semitic fascism for about seven years, full time, as a grown-up with serious money to invest, and kept at it for years after the Nazis had marched on Poland. The article should reflect the real concerns with his legacy based on fact. --Lockley (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

It is common knowledge that several modern breeds (often referred to as pit bulls) are descendants of the fighting bull and terrier crosses dating back to the 1800s, and that evolution brings significant change. Based on the premise that "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, and Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research, are the tags claiming OR and SYNTH warranted for the following paragraph:

There are unsupported theories or opinions that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original bull and terrier rather than one of several descendants that have been standardized as modern purebreds without taking into consideration important evolutionary factors considered to be "very often misquoted and misunderstood."[27] The standard for the modern Stafford aligns with the breed's transformation from its bull and terrier ancestry as a fighting dog to a modern conformation show dog.[28]

(My italicized text and underline of the relative material in the article) Evolution Of The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Standard:

In the UK, there existed 40 years of evolution to the standard prior to AKC acceptance. It is important to consider this history not only to have a better understanding of today’s standard, but ultimately to provide important context that will assist in our interpretation of the modern breed and our evaluation thereof. (It goes on to explain the height variations….) This is by far the most significant change to the breed standard throughout its evolution in terms of how it impacts our interpretation of the balance between bull and terrier as well as the subjective descriptors found throughout the rest of the standard. (It goes on with more info about the early dogs that came directly from fighting stock, and the wider variations in size and proportion compared to the modern show dog of today’s standards. It goes on to say…) You may hear some incorrectly state that the current heights and weights that define proper substance were derived by the fighting fancy …. (And so on…). In realty, the modern standard already takes into consideration the breed’s transformation from a fighting dog to a show dog. The argument that it’s acceptable for our modern show dogs to carry more mass than the current standard calls for is an unfounded and unfortunate misinterpretation of the breed’s history.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

As has already been stated on the article talk page on the 18th February, the quoted text is about misinterpretations of historical information to justify attempts to amend the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's breed standard in the US, it is not the breed history. Therefore quoting the passage "very often misquoted and misunderstood" in the current context is WP:SYNTH. Further, many sources including at least one cited in the article state all of the other breeds you mention descend from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

The comment above, "descend from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is an example of "very often misquoted and misunderstood" relative to bona fide breeds and breed standards. To say all other breeds descended from the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is like saying my cousin is my ancestor - it's illogical. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier became a registered modern breed in 1935 when The Kennel Club (TKC) first recognized it as a purebred dog. That recognition came after the Bull Terrier#History (1885 by AKC), (also see UKC History), the Boston Terrier#History, and American Staffordshire Terrier#History. Perhaps the misunderstanding originates from cherrypicked statements in articles/books that referenced a strain of 1800s, non-predigreed, hybrid crosses of bull and terriers stating Staffordshire as the geographic location which the following supports: this article: However, Cairns further clarified that the pedigree inscribed on the plaque of the Crib and Rosa painting, specifically the words "the famous Staffordshire bitch", is not suggesting that it was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but that "it could be concluded that animals of that type, existed in that county before 1816." CONTEXTMATTERS. Atsme 💬 📧 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A modest proposal. Replace all Wikipedia articles on dogs that might possibly be descended from other dogs with a redirect to Canis lupus familiaris. And add a note at the top of the article there stating that all 'breeds' of dogs are dogs, and that Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck about what their owners call them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Andy!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)